Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act  ||  Meghalaya High Court: In a Sacred Relationship, Husband is the Property of the Wife and Vice Versa  ||  Kar HC: Disciplinary Authority Must Look Into Past Conduct of Workman While Passing Dismissal Order  ||  Ker. HC: Facts Indicating Special Knowledge Must be Estd. by Prosecution to Shift Burden of Proof  ||  Ker. HC: Facts Indicating Special Knowledge Must be Estd. by Prosecution to Shift Burden of Proof  ||  Ker. HC: Independent Evidence of Accomplice Sufficient in Itself to Sustain Conviction    

Mohinder Singh vs D.T.C. andAnr. - (High Court of Delhi) (13 Jul 2023)

Once employee opted for VRS and his decision had been accepted by Corporation, he cannot be permitted to take plea of ignorance about terms and conditions of Scheme

MANU/DE/4475/2023

Service

The Petitioner vide the instant Writ Petition is impugning the validity of the retirement order issued by the Respondent Corporation. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned order on the grounds that vide the impugned order, the Respondent Corporation retired the Petitioner from service without providing him the pensionary benefits as envisaged under Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the Respondent Corporation.

The issue raised in the present proceedings is no more res integra as the Supreme Court in DTC v. Moolchand has already settled the issue by holding that, the employees will get benefits only as per the terms of the VRS Scheme. In the present case also, there is a specific provision in the VRS Scheme which disentitles the Petitioner from claiming pensionary benefits. Hence, following the dicta of Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner is not entitled for the pensionary benefits. Further, the Petitioner opted for the V.R.S. Scheme and availed all the benefits as per the said Scheme. In compliance of the direction of this Court, the Respondent Corporation reconsidered the grievance of the Petitioner and rejected the same vide a reasoned order. In view of the same, he cannot be allowed to be reinstated, at this stage, as the Respondent Corporation acted in accordance with the specific terms of the VRS Scheme.

The Petitioner himself without any coercion opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Once his decision to opt for the retirement had been accepted by the Respondent Corporation, he shall not be permitted to take a step back and take plea of ignorance about terms and conditions of the Scheme. It was the responsibility of the Petitioner to understand the features of the Scheme which were to govern his retirement from service. The Circular dated 6th October, 1995, is applicable to the Petitioner since he opted for voluntary retirement after publishing of the said Circular. Therefore, presentCourt is not inclined to exercise its power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence, no interference is warranted in the retirement order issued by the Respondent corporation. Petition dismissed.

Tags : RETIREMENT ORDER   PENSIONARY BENEFITS   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved