Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

l) This Court in various Writ Petitions, taking note of the above order by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 23901/2007, was of the view that the inter se dispute between GNCTD and the successor electricity company should not become a roadblock for the petitioners to get their revised pension to which they are admittedly entitled. The liability for paying the increased component of pension to the petitioners in terms of Resolution No. 216 dated 16.07.1997 read with order of this Court dated 11.02.2004 in W.P (C) Nos.4316/2001 and 3134/2002 would be that of the successor electricity company and their said liability shall be treated as an interim arrangement and will be subject to the final W.P.(C) 495/2010 & connected matter 5 of 29 outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court on its liability in proceedings pending there in the Supreme Court. The successor electricity company was directed to provide additional funds to the Pension Trust that may be required for payment of revised pension to the petitioners and the Pension Trust was directed to release the revised pension to the petitioners on the receipt of the additional amount from the successor electricity company.

a) Union of India vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors, reported in AIR 2011 SC 2731.

b) U.P. State Corporation Limited vs. Sant Raj Singh & Ors, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 82.

c) State of Karnataka & Ors vs. Gadilingappa & ors, reported in AIR 2010 SC 2458.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.4/PENSION TRUST :-

20. Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4/ DVB Employees Terminal Benefits Fund, 2002 (Pension Trust) submits that the W.P.(C) 495/2010 & connected matter 14 of 29 pressing issue in the present petitions is that whether the petitioners are entitled for 2nd TBPS or not. He further submits that the respondent no. 4 need not make any submissions on the aforesaid issue because, the respondent no. 4 is the Trust created for the disbursal of the pension of the employees of the DVB and certain other retiral benefits.

22. Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel submits that the respondent no. 4 is the Pension Trust and as it is already disbursing the pension to the retired employees of the DVS, the respondent no. 4 would only be paying the difference in pension once the salary is enhanced on account of the promotion with effect from as and when the petitioners are entitled, subject to the contribution to the Trust by the respondent no. 2. He further explains his contention by submitting that once an employee retires, certain contribution is made on behalf of the concerned employer on account of the leave salary, W.P.(C) 495/2010 & connected matter 15 of 29 pensionary benefits etc., and from that the respondent no. 4 would disburse the pension to the employees.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF THE COURT:-

24. This Court has heard the arguments of Ms. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prabhakar learned counsel for respondent no. 2/BSES, Mr. S.K.Singh for respondent no.4/Pension Trust, carefully scrutinized the documents on record and considered the judgments relied upon by the parties.

25. From the arguments and averments in the writ petition as also the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the substratum of the case of the petitioners as also that of the respondent no.2 is primarily predicated on the pure interpretation of the Office Order dated 23.07.1997. Before commencing upon the analysis and interpretation, it would be apposite to reproduce hereunder the complete Office Order dated 23.07.1997:-