Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Balbir Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 12 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.3806/2010 MA No.3269/2010 New Delhi, this the 12th day of May, 2011 HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER(A) Shri Balbir Singh, S/o Sh. Kaitu Singh, R/o House No.327-28, K-Block, Jhangirpuri, Delhi-110033. Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. Deepali Gupta) Versus Delhi Transport Corporation, Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. . Respondents. (By Advocate: Shri Anand Nandan) : O R D E R :
Shri Balbir Singh, the Applicant herein, who was appointed as Conductor in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) on 10.12.1971 retired from the service of the Respondent on superannuation on 31.01.2010 but the Applicant was not paid the pensionary benefits, as per the Respondents Pension Scheme issued vide Office Order No.16 dated 27.11.1992. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondents, the Applicant is before this Tribunal with the following relief(s) :
(i) Issue a writ/order directing the respondent to cancel the arbitrary and illegal entry made by them in the service book of applicant on 29/11/07.
(ii) Direct the respondent to pay the applicant Consolidated Pension w.e.f. the date of his superannuation i.e. 31/01/2010, calculated for each month and till the date of Final Payment, and thereafter to pay monthly pension every month by month.
(iii) Direct the respondent to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the aforesaid amount of pension as accumulated and payable to applicant.
(iv) Grant any other relief as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) Costs of the proceedings may also be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
2. Heard Ms. Deepali Gupta, learned counsel for the Applicant and Shri Anand Nandan, learned counsel representing the Respondents.
3. It is contended by the counsel for Applicant that Respondent Corporation introduced Pension Scheme on 27.11.1992 and as per the Clause 9 of the said Scheme, if any employee of the DTC does not exercise any option within the prescribed period of 30 days or quit service or dies without exercising an option or his option is incomplete or conditional or ambigious, he would be deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme. In the case of Applicant, she contends that he did not exercise any option and as such he should have been treated as deemed optee under Clause 9 of the said Pension Scheme but the Respondents instead of treating him as deemed optee have treated him as not optee and denied the pension due to the Applicant. It is further contended that the Applicant represented but the Respondents took the stand that in the pay slip N had been indicated which would go to show that he is a non-optee which the Applicant was aware of while in service. The counsel for Applicant submits that by using the Right to Information Act, the Applicant has collected certain information which would go to show that in the service record, first it was recorded do hereby opt and lateron the same has been changed as not opted. This does not give a clear picture of the Respondents stand, as the Respondents have been not in a position to show that Applicant has given in writing that he has not opted to be covered under the Pension Scheme. Therefore, the learned counsel for Applicant would argue that the grievance of the Applicant being genuine and he having superannuated on 31.01.2010, the pensionary benefits admissible to him under the Scheme on 27.11.1992 should be released alongwith the interest from the date of his superannuation to the actual date of payment. In this regard, she placed her reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of Shri Raj Pal Singh Versus Delhi Transport Corporation [OA No.302/2010 decided on 03.06.2010]. She also drew my attention to the MA No.3269/2010 to highlight the illegal approach on the part of the Respondents, in the sense that when the OA was pending before the Tribunal, the employers contribution of CPF was credited to the Applicants bank account. She clarifies that the said CPF amount would be remitted back to DTC.
4. On the other hand, Respondent has entered appearance and filed their counter reply. Controverting the contentions and grounds raised by the Applicant in the OA, Mr. Anand Nandan, learned counsel for Respondent would submit that the computerized pay slips indicates N which would signify that the Applicant is a non pension optee. Besides, Respondent has produced the records in support of their claim to say that the Applicant has been aware of the fact that he is a non optee for pension, as the optee Clause has been deleted in various statements prepared by the Respondent. On a query from the Bench to find out whether the Applicant has specifically given a letter to the Respondent indicating that he has not opted for the pension scheme, the learned counsel for the Respondent submits that such letter could not be produced by the DTC, as the same might have destroyed by the Respondent.
5. When this OA was pending before the Tribunal, Respondent has acted in a manner by which the employers share of the Contributory Provident Fund applicable for the Non Pension Optees was transferred to the Bank account of the Applicant. The same amount has been unilaterally released by the Respondent, which has been objected to by the Applicant in MA No.3269/2010. On 23.12.2010, when the case came up before the Tribunal, learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant should be treated as deemed pension optee and the Applicant would like to return the Employers share of CPF amount deposited in his account. This matter was also raised by him during the final hearing. It is noticed that the payment of CPF through Bank account of the Applicant has not been disputed by the Respondent. Be that as it may, the payment of CPF would not be accepted as one of the grounds by which the Respondents would reinforce their contention to treat the Applicant as a pension non optee.
6. Admittedly, the Applicant was an employee of the DTC on 27.11.1992 when the Pension Scheme of DTC was introduced and came into force. The Applicant retired on 31.01.2010. The Respondents have not been in a position to demonstrate either from the Service Book or from the records relating to the Applicant more specifically about the letter sent by the Applicant not opting for pension. I perused the file of the Applicant placed before me by the Respondent. The file does not disclose any communication from the Applicant showing that he is to be treated as pension non-optee. On the other hand, it is found from the extracts of the service book relating to the Applicant that he was first recorded as Pension optee, which has been circled and recorded as non pension optee and the corrections seems to have been carried out in the year 2007 whereas the scheme was introduced as far back as in the year 1992. The records produced before me by the Respondents does not disclose any statement having been given by the Applicant that he has opted to be non-pension optee. On the contrary, the Applicant has adequately demonstrated that he has not exercised his option. It was noticed that when the DTC Pension Scheme in 1992 was introduced, the employees were asked to opt for the pension or otherwise. Thus, the Scheme envisage 3 categories of employees viz Not opted for Pension, Opted for Pension and Deemed opted for Pension. The Applicant has not given any option in favour or against the pension scheme, as a result of which he should have been treated as deemed optee under Clause 9 of the DTC Pension Scheme. The Clause 9 of the said pension scheme dated 27.11.1992 reads as follows :-
9) If any of the employees 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 ambiguous, he shall be deemed to have opted the Pension Scheme Benefits.
7. In view of the above, I find that the Applicant would come within the category of deemed optee and by no fits of imagination can he be put as non pension optee. Thus, he is entitled to get the benefits of Pension Scheme in terms of the scheme promulgated by the Respondents vide their order dated 27.11.1992.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the Clause 9 of the Scheme, I come to the considered conclusion that Applicant is a deemed pension optee and is entitled to the benefits of DTC Pension Scheme, 1992. Resultantly, I direct the Applicant to return the CPF which has been deposited in the account of the Applicant within a period of 15 days. The Respondent is directed to take steps to work out and release the pensionary benefits to the Applicant alongwith the simple rate of interest of 9% per annum from the date of Applicants retirement to the date of actual payment. This pensionary benefit payment to the Applicant shall be made within a period of nine weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. In terms of the above directions, the OA having merits is allowed. No costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) Member (A) /rk/