Delhi High Court - Orders
Satish Kumar (Deceased) Through His ... vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 26 August, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3668/2019
SATISH KUMAR (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS WIFE
SMT. RANI DEVI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Sharma and Mr. Lalit,
Advs.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Respondent
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh and
Mr. Amol Rana, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
ORDER
% 26.08.2025
1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in O.A. No.600/2017, titled Sh. Satish Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation, whereby the said O.A. filed by the husband of the petitioner seeking grant of pension, was dismissed.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The husband of the petitioner was appointed temporarily to the post of Retainer Crew (RC) Driver with effect from 10.05.1989 with the respondent. He met with an accident, because of which FIR No. 350/90 was registered at Police Station, Parliament Street under Section 279/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 07.01.1990. He was terminated from service on 14.01.1991 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2025 at 22:47:23 on the account of the said accident. He was acquitted in the criminal case vide an Order dated 02.01.1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Thereafter, he filed a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No. 384/2000, seeking reinstatement in service. The matter was settled, and he was re-inducted into service with effect from 02.12.2003. He was regularised to the post of Monthly Rate Driver with effect from 01.06.2004. He retired from service on 29.02.2016. He was, however, not granted pension, aggrieved of which, he filed the above O.A.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent had been deducting monthly contributions towards the DTC pension from the husband of the petitioner. He further submits that in similar situation, the respondent themselves released pension in favour of another employee, namely Sh. Nand Ram. In support of the submission, he places reliance on Annexure A-10, which is an Office Note by which pension was released to Sh. Nand Ram (T. No. 58385).
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner's husband was not entitled to pension, having been appointed as a daily wager Retainer Crew (RC) Driver. She submits that even after his reinstatement from 02.12.2003, he was regularised as a Monthly Rate Driver only on 01.06.2004, that, is after the DTC-Pension Scheme had been discontinued. He was, therefore, to be treated as covered under the EPS-95. It is further submitted that the deductions appeared to have been wrongly made as contribution from the petitioner's husband for the DTC-Pension Scheme.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2025 at 22:47:23
5. On the issue of Sh. Nand Ram, the learned counsel for the respondent is unable to assist us today.
6. We find that although the petition was filed in the year 2019, the counter-affidavit has not been filed till date. In the writ petition, the petitioner had specifically raised the issue of Sh. Nand Ram.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the contributions which had been deducted from the petitioner towards the DTC-Pension Scheme, have neither been refunded to the petitioner nor to his nominee till date.
8. The counsel for the respondent prays for time to seek instructions on the above issue as well.
9. In the interest of justice, the respondent is granted further time to specifically respond to the above two issues, within a period of four weeks from today.
10. However, for today's adjournment, the respondent shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner.
11. List-on 4th November, 2025.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 26, 2025/bs/p/ik This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2025 at 22:47:23