Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Rati Bhan vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 26 July, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-3787/2010
New Delhi this the 26th day of July, 2011.
Honble Sh. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Sh. Rati Bhan,
S/o late Sh. Ram Sarup,
R/o Vill. & P.O. Dichaon Kalan,
New Delhi-43. . Applicant
(Present : None)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-2.
(through Chairman-cum-Managing Director) . Respondent
(through Sh. J.N. Aggrawal, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) When the matter was called out today neither the applicant, nor any one representing him appeared to present his case. Earlier on 07.07.2011 the matter was adjourned to today at the joint request of the learned counsel for both the parties. We do not see any reason to postpone the hearing of the case. Therefore, we heard learned counsel for the respondents and proceeded to decide the O.A. on the basis of the pleadings available on record in terms of Rule 15 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
2. The O.A. has been filed challenging the order dated 17.09.2010 by which the inability of the respondent organization, namely, Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) to implement any Pension Scheme pursuant to its Office Order dated 28.10.2002 and the Press note of 2003 because of lack of resources was intimated to the applicant.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
3.1 The applicant was appointed on 18.09.1965 as an Assistant Foreman of DTC. A Pension Scheme was introduced on 27.11.1992 in respect of employees retiring on or after 03.08.1981. Although the employees were specifically asked to exercise their option for pension, the applicant did not exercise his option. However, it is the claim of the applicant that in terms of Clause-9 of the order his case should have been treated as one of deemed option. DTC issued an Office Order once again on 28.10.2002 inviting option and the applicant exercised his option within the time prescribed. He retired from the service of DTC on 31.03.2003. It was mentioned in the Office letter dated 17.10.2002 intimating him about his retirement from service that his was a case of an employee who had not opted for pension. However, he contested this position and submitted before the respondents that he had exercised his option on 11.11.2002 after issue of the letter dated 28.10.2002 and he should be given the pensionary benefits. Nevertheless, the respondents released the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) dues of the applicant on 10.09.2003. He returned the cheque and asked for pensionary benefits. However, the respondents declined to accede to his request and sent the cheque in respect of EPF dues again to him. The applicant filed WP(C) No. 13206-07/2004 in the Honble High Court of Delhi. This Writ Petition was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as TA-632/2009, which was disposed of on 04.06.2010 by directing the respondent to consider the claim of the applicant in the light of the final policy. When his claim was finally rejected, the applicant has filed the present O.A. challenging that order and seeking the relief towards his claim for pensionary benefits.
4. The applicant has tried to justify his claim on the ground that the respondent should be estopped from going back on its own promise to extend pensionary benefits to the employees including the pensioner; since the applicant had opted specifically in response to the Office Order dated 28.10.2002, he was eligible for this benefit; the established proposition of law being that the pension is not a bounty, but a valuable right of the employee and is in the form of deferred payment, his claim could not be denied by the respondents.
5. The respondents, on the other hand, have stated that the applicant had not opted in favour of the Pension Scheme introduced on 27.11.1992 and he was specifically declared as one among those who had not opted for the pension scheme in the list of officers brought out by the DTC on 13.05.1996 (Annexure R-1). The applicant had not contested this position in 1996.
5.1 There was pressure on the DTC Management to extend the benefit to DTC employees who retired from 03.08.1981 onwards. Therefore, the order dated 28.10.2002 and the Press Notice of 23.09.2003 were issued to examine the feasibility of extending Pension Scheme to such employee. It was only a Notice about the intension but not the final Policy decision of the Corporation. This issue was decided by Honble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 28.02.2007 in the Writ Petitions Nos. 13211 & 15215/2004, which reads as under:-
20. Thus it is misconceived on the part of the petitioners to claim that any vested legal right had accrued in their favour and against the respondent in terms of the general notice published in the newspapers, for the petitioners to seek implementation thereof in the present writ petitions.. 5.2 TA-632/2009 relating to the claims of the applicant was decided by this Tribunal on 04.06.2010. The respondents submit that the applicant cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same issue again in the present O.A. In the earlier TA, the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the applicant in the light of the final policy decision taken with regard to their circular dated 28.10.2002 and the Notice in the Press dated 23.09.2003 by passing a speaking and reasoned order.
5.3 It is further stated that both the order dated 28.10.2002 as well as the Press Notice of 23.09.2003 only express the intension of the Management. It says very clearly, after receiving the list of employees exercising their option in favour of DTC Pension Scheme, the matter would be examined. The decision of the management shall be final. The Management had informed Honble High Court of Delhi in an application filed in CW-48/2001, DTC Workers Union Vs. DTC about its inability to introduce the proposed Pension Scheme after examination of the whole issue and financial liability of the Corporation. It was finally decided not to implement the Pension Scheme of 2002 as the Corporation did not have resources to support it.
6. We find that the impugned order is a clear and reasoned one and passed in compliance of the direction given to the respondents by the Tribunal. The applicant has not brought out any new material which would justify his claim.
6.1 On going through the pleadings, we find that the issue whether any vested rights had accrued to the employees of DTC because of the Press Notice of 23.09.2003 and the order dated 28.10.2002 issued by the respondent had been examined by the Honble High Court of Delhi and answered in the negative in the aforesaid case of Shyam Lal Goel (supra). There has not been any new development on the basis of which the applicant could set up his claim for pensionary benefits. The Tribunal earlier heard his case and directed the respondents to give a reasoned order in terms of their final policy decision. They have done so.
7. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit to give any further direction in the matter. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /vv/