Delhi Transport Corporation vs Mool Chand on 2 December, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Supreme Court of India

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Mool Chand on 2 December, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2008 SC 409

Bench: Aftab Alam, Markandey Katju

           ITEM NO.106               COURT NO.10                SECTION XIV

       SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7258 OF 2002

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION                               Appellant (s)

              VERSUS

MOOL CHAND                                   Respondent(s)

WITH Civil Appeal NO. 2301 of 2007
(With office report)
Civil Appeal NO. 2302 of 2007
(With office report)
Civil Appeal NO. 4434 of 2003
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)

Date: 02/12/2008 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM

For Appellant(s)
           Ms. A.Subhashini,Adv.

             Ms. A.Subhashini

For Respondent(s)
           Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv.

             Mr. B.D. Sharma
             Mr. L.N. Gupta
             Mrs Lalita Kaushik

      UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                 ORDER

              (Parveen Kr. Chawla)                                   (Indu Satija)
                  Court Master                                       Court Master
                                                                             REPORTABLE
                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CIVIL APPEAL NO.7258 OF 2002


Delhi Transport Corporation                        ..Appellant

                    versus

Mool Chand                                                    ..Respondent


                               ORDER

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 06th November, 2001. It appears that there was a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'VRS') in the Delhi Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', in 1993 which contained a provision for pension. The respondent herein did not apply under that VRS Scheme.

Subsequently, the Corporation framed a new Scheme dated 13.12.1995 in which it was specifically stated that those employees who opt for VRS under the new Scheme will not get pension. Respondent, admittedly, applied under this scheme.

Since, there was a specific provision in the VRS Scheme dated 13.12.1995, we fail to see how the High Court has held that the respondent will get pension in addition to VRS benefits.

In view of above, we find that the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous and it is hereby set aside.

The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No Order as to costs. Civil Appeal Nos.2301/2007 and 2302/2007 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeals has stated that in view of the earlier order of this Court dated 12th March, 2007 passed in Special Leave Petition(C)No.4135 of 2007, these appeals may be dismissed. We order accordingly.

..........................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU] NEW DELHI; ...........................J. DECEMBER 02, 2008. [AFTAB ALAM]

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Supreme Court of India