Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs Brij Lal Thakur on 11 November, 2021
Bench: R. Subhash Reddy, Hrishikesh Roy
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3670-3671 OF 2017
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BRIJ LAL THAKUR RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Heard Mr. D.L.Chidananda, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Raizada, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
The respondent herein was appointed as conductor with the appellant- Himachal Road Transport Corporation on 07.01.1983. The appellant-Corporation has introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide proceedings No.HO:9E:794/73(A)-III, dated 23.11.2004. The respondent was the applicant seeking voluntary retirement, which was accepted on 31.07.2005. The first respondent has rendered 22 years, 7 months and 24 days of service with the appellant- Corporation.
When the appellant made a representation to count additional five years of service for the purpose of pensionary and retiral benefits as contained in Rule 29 and 48-B of the Central Civil Signature Not Verified Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2021.11.16 same was rejected. The first 17:26:04 IST Reason:
1
respondent filed Writ Petition before the High Court questioning the same. By impugned judgment, High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the proceedings dated 30.11.2004, with a further direction to the appellant-Corporation to extend the benefit of adding five years’ service to the respondent from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.07.2005 and revise the pension and release other retiral benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till realization.
The learned counsel for the appellant by drawing a distinction from the judgment of this Court in the case of BANK OF INDIA & ANR. v. K. MOHANDAS & ORS.1 to the facts of this case and by referring to proceedings dated 30.11.2004 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation, submitted that the respondent is not entitled to count additional five years’ service, as much as, he was retired under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that the impugned order is passed by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of BANK OF INDIA & ANR. v. K. MOHANDAS & ORS. 1 which is squarely applicable to the case on hand. It is, further, brought to our notice that though the scheme was notified by obtaining approval from the Government, the proceedings dated 30.11.2004 is issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation on his own, as such, same cannot come in the way of the respondent for claiming the benefit.
In this case, it is to be noted that Voluntary Retirement Scheme was issued by obtaining approval from the Government. The 1(2009) 5 SCC 313 2 said scheme has not excluded the applicability of Rule 29 and 48-B of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. When the scheme is notified after obtaining necessary approval from the Government, the proceedings issued by the Managing Director cannot be relied on in absence of any clause in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme excluding the applicability of Rule 29 and 48-B of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these Civil Appeals, so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. These Civil Appeals are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
…………………………………………….J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY] …………………………………………….J. [HRISHIKESH ROY] NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 11, 2021
3
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal Nos. 3670-3671/2017
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
BRIJ LAL THAKUR Respondent(s)
Date : 11-11-2021 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Alok Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Ashwin Kumar D.S., Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. R.K. Raizada, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Divya Roy, AOR Mr. Surjeet Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard Mr. D.L.Chidananda, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Raizada, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
The Civil appeals are dismissed in terms of signed order.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
4