Delhi High Court
Vir Bhan vs The G.M., Dtc on 24 July, 2006
Author: Manju Goel
Bench: Manju Goel
JUDGMENT Manju Goel, J.
1. This petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeks grant of pension and other pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner under the Pension Scheme with effect from 1.6.1993. The petitioner joined the DTC on 15.12.1974 as Driver. A Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced on 16.3.1993 and he was allowed to retire voluntarily with effect from the afternoon of 31.5.1993. There was a pension scheme announced on 27.11.1992 and options had been invited from the employees and retired employees so that they could chose between the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and the Pension Scheme. The petitioner did not exercise his option but there was a deeming clause saying that in case no option had been categorically given by an employee he would be deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme. Vide a letter dated 15.10.1993 the petitioner was informed that he had opted for Pension Scheme. At the concluding part of the letter, the petitioner was informed that the Provident Fund Settlement Committee had accorded approval for release of his own share towards CPF. The petitioner, however, was not the paid the pension and the respondent treated the petitioner as if he had not have opted for the pension scheme. The respondent claimed that later the petitioner moved an application expressing his desire to change his option from CPF scheme and that vide a communication dated 12.4.1994 he was informed that his request had been acceded to. The respondent thereafter released the share of the employee towards the CPF vide a letter dated 5.7.1994. The petitioner is, however, not willing to accept the sanction of the subsequent approval of the option in favor of the CPF. What is contended here is that the petitioner had already voluntarily retired on 16.3.1992 and after the last date by which the option was to be exercised, the petitioner's option could not be given for the CPF Scheme as it was de hors the rules and could not have been accepted. Further it is stated that despite the alleged letter accepting the petitioner's option for the CPF scheme, the respondent released only the share of the petitioner in the CPF. The share of the employer in the CPF was released much later during the pendency of the writ petition.
2. The petitioner is relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of W.P. (C). No. 1949/2005 titled Girwar Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation decided on 10.2.2006 wherein a similar situation was considered and it was observed that the DTC could not have accepted the option subsequent to the date by which the option was to be exercised and, therefore, the petitioner therein was entitled to the benefit of the pension scheme of 1992. As against this judgment, the respondent is placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in LPA No.330/2002 titled DTC Retired Employees Association vs. DTC decided on 17.4.2002 in which the circular of the DTC dated 10.2.1994 was in question. It was held that once the members of the first petitioner association and the second and the third petitioner had opted for the contributory provident fund scheme, they had no right to switch back to the pension scheme especially when the petitioner had availed of the benefit under the CPF scheme. The facts of the present case actually tally with the case of Girwar Singh (Supra) that deals with the circular of 1992 and the situation where after their having opted for the pension scheme impliedly they had wanted to go back to the CPF scheme and thereafter again wanted to go back to the pension scheme. Admittedly, the DTC who was a party to the writ petition of Girwar Singh (Supra) has not opted to challenge this judgment either in an LPA or before the Supreme Court.
3. I find Girwar Singh (Supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no reason to differ with the judgment of Girwar Singh (Supra). Following this judgment I hold that the petitioner has to be treated as one who has opted for the pension scheme and the benefit of the pension scheme has to be given to him.
4. The petitioner has received, during the pendency of the writ petition, the portion of the CPF which is contributed by the employer. The petitioner is willing to refund the entire money along with interest. The respondent, therefore, be given the benefit of the pension scheme and all the arrears available under the scheme subject to deduction of the excess amount paid to the petitioner. The petitioner shall also be liable to interest on the amount received by the petitioner over and above his entitlement under the pension scheme. The interest payable by the petitioner will be the same which the petitioner would have been entitled to had he continued to hold an account with the CPF.
5. The petition stands disposed of.