Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwan Singh and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (26 Feb 2019)

To avail benefit of Pension Rules, an employee must qualify in terms of Rules

MANU/SC/0272/2019

Service

The Respondents are all ex-employees of the Appellant/Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), who availed of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The Respondents have, however, been held disentitled to pension on account of exclusion of period, when they remained absent without authorisation for which period they were held not entitled to salary. In D.T.C. v. Lillu Ram, such exclusion was upheld with the consequence that the ex-employees would not get pensionary benefits, having not completed 10 years of qualifying service. In the present appeal, two Hon'ble Judges of this Court, after examining Lillu Ram's case opined that, a reconsideration by a larger Bench, of that view, was required. As a sequitur, the present appeal has been placed.

No one, including the Respondents can be permitted to plead that, they would be unaware of the Pension Rules, which have a statutory force and whose benefit they seek to avail. In fact, the VRS itself, more specifically Clause (g), makes these very Rules applicable. Rule 21 Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is clear in its terms, i.e., "all leave during service for which leave salary is payable" would count. The corollary is that, if an employee is not paid for leave, that period has to be excluded from the period to be counted for admissibility of pension.

Rule 3(1)(q), while defining "qualifying service" provides for service rendered while on duty "or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under these rules." Thus, the period of leave for which salary is payable would be taken into account for determining the pensionable service, while the period for which leave salary is not payable would be excluded. The Rule is crystal clear and does not brook any two interpretations. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that, when the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, there cannot be a recourse to any principle of interpretation other than the Rule of literal construction.

In the given facts of the present case, the Respondents were not governed by Rules, but by the Employees Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The Pension Scheme was sought to be introduced only couple of months before the VRS, and that too was not implemented till 1995. Not only that, it was not implemented through the LIC but ultimately by the Appellant-Corporation itself, much later in 1995. Thus, the occasion for making any entries for this leave period in the service record, in terms of the Rules did not even arise at the stage when the VRS was applied. There may have been some significance to these aspects, if the Pension Rules were already applicable over a period of time and entries had not been made, though, even there, it would not be in supersession of the plain language of the Rule.

To avail of the benefit of Pension Rules, an employee must qualify in terms of the Rules. In the present case, the Respondents unfortunately do not do so, as the period which is sought to be excluded from their qualifying service is one where they have admittedly not been paid leave salary. The qualifying period for the VRS would have to be governed by that Scheme and cannot ipso facto be imported into the entitlement of pension, contrary to the plain wordings of the Pension Rules. If any payments have been made to the Respondents, especially in view of the interim order, the Appellant-Corporation will not claim any refund of such amount already paid . The impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Relevant : D.T.C. v. Lillu Ram MANU/SC/1701/2011

Tags : BENEFIT PENSION RULES