Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajvir Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 12 July, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
O.A.No.4230/2011
Order Reserved on: 09.05.2016
Order pronounced on 12.07.2016
Hon'ble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A)
Rajvir Singh
S/o Sh. Inder Singh
ATI, T.No.23397
Vill. & P.O.Jasssia
Tehsil & Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Kittu Bajaj)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation
Through its Chairman
I.P.Estate,
New Delhi. ... Respondent
(By Advocate: Shri N.K.Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat)
ORDER
By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
The applicant, a retired Assistant Traffic Inspector of the respondent - Delhi Transport Corporation (in short, DTC), has filed the OA, seeking release of pension and other benefits. O.A.No.4230/2011 2
2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the OA, are that the respondent-DTC was governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, prior to 27.11.1992. Thereafter, the respondent-DTC vide Office Order No.16 dated 27.11.1992, introduced the Pension Scheme to all its employees as applicable to the Central Government employees. The date of effect of the said Scheme is 03.08.1981. As per the said Scheme all the existing employees including those retired with effect from 03.08.1981 onwards, would have the option to opt for the Pension Scheme or the Employees Contributory Provident Fund, within 30 days from the date of issue of the aforesaid Office Order. The said Office Order at Clause No.9 further provides as under:
"9) If any of the employee of DTC who does not exercise any option within the prescribed period of 30 days or quit service or dies without exercising an option or whose option is incomplete or conditional or unambiguous, he shall be deemed to have opted the Pension Scheme Benefits."
3. It is submitted that the applicant was a deemed optee for pension and having rendered 33 years of service, he finally retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2012 and accordingly, he is entitled for pension and other consequential benefits under the said Scheme. At the time of the retirement of the applicant, by considering him as pension optee, the respondents released his leave encashment, gratuity, and his share of provident fund. The employer's share was retained by the respondents, by treating him as a DTC Pension optee.
O.A.No.4230/20113
4. However, the respondents refused to grant pension to the applicant basing on a double entry in his service book with regard to pension option. It is stated that in the service book of the applicant it was mentioned at one place "opted for pension" and whereas at another place, mentioned as "not opted for pension". In spite of repeated representations of the applicant, in view of the said alleged ambiguity, the respondents denied the right of pension to the applicant.
5. Heard Ms. Kittu Bajaj, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri N.K.Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, the learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings on record.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant drawn our attention to certain documents filed along with the OA. A letter dated 01.06.2007 issued by the Depot Manager, Rohini Depot, of the respondent-DTC indicates that the applicant was covered under DTC Pension Scheme as per Clause 9 of the Office Order No.16 date 27.11.1992. Another letter dated 03.06.2010, issued prior to the retirement of the applicant specifically stated that the applicant has opted for Pension Scheme. Again, the letter dated 24.11.2010 issued while paying Gratuity to the applicant, also stated that the applicant has opted for DTC Pension Scheme. Accordingly, the learned counsel submits that since the applicant was a deemed optee under Clause 9 of the said DTC Pension Scheme, denying the same to him on the basis of a double entry in his O.A.No.4230/2011 4 service book is illegal, arbitrary and against to the Office Order No.16 dated 27.11.1992 itself.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating the counter averments submits that in the pay slip of the applicant it was mentioned as `N', which indicates that the applicant is a non-pension optee and in his service book it was also mentioned at one place that he has not opted for pension and his name does not appear in the list of Conductors, who opted for pension. The double entry in the service book of the applicant showing that he is a pension optee, is a manipulation. Accordingly, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled for pension under the said Scheme, and the OA is liable to be dismissed.
8. Admittedly, it is not the case of the respondents that the applicant has given any letter specifically opting out of the pension Scheme. It is also not forthcoming on what basis the respondents recorded in the service book of the applicant that he has not opted for pension, when opting and not giving any option results in placing an employee under optees category only.
9. Further, Clause 9 of the Office Order No.16 dated 27.11.1992 is very clear and unambiguous. According to the same, if any of the employee who does not exercise any option, within the prescribed period of 30 days or whose option is incomplete or conditional or O.A.No.4230/2011 5 ambiguous, he shall be deemed to have opted the pension Scheme benefits. Hence, when the contention of the applicant is that he is a deemed optee under Clause 9, and when the respondents failed to show any cogent proof, where the applicant opted out of the pension Scheme, as per the said Clause, the applicant should be treated as a pension optee, and should be granted all the benefits under the said Scheme, like any other pension optee.
10. The vague and bald contention of the respondents that the service book of the applicant is manipulated cannot have legs to stand, in the absence of any specific action at the respondents' end.
11. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the pension and other benefits under the said Pension Scheme to the applicant on par with other pension optees, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant is also entitled for payment of interest at the GPF rates on the arrears amount from the date of retirement to the date of actual payment. No costs.
(Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha) (V. Ajay Kumar)
Member (A) Member (J)
/nsnrvak/