NDLI: Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwan Singh & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	pension requirment to complete 10 years 1972 – rr.3(1)(q) 27 28 VRS 49(1) Central Civil Services Pension Rules 21
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 – rr.3(1)(q), 21,27, 28, 49(1) – Respondents, ex-employees of the appellant-Corporation, governed by the Employees Contributory Provident Fund Scheme – Introduction of pension scheme as per Office Order dtd. 27.11.1992 – Announcement of Voluntary Retirement Scheme(VRS) in 1993 – In order to avail this Scheme, the eligibility conditions required an employee to have completed 10 years of service in the appellant, or completed 40 years of age – Sub-clause (g) of Clause 4 of the Scheme provided for pensionary benefits as per Office Order dtd. 27.11.1992 – Respondents availed VRS – 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 Lillu Ram’s case such exclusion was upheld– Reconsideration by larger Bench – Held: VRS itself, more specifically Clause(g), makes Pension Rules applicable– r.21 is clear,i.e.”all leave during service for which leave salary is payable” would count – If an employee is not paid for leave, that period has to be excluded from the period to be counted for admissibility of pension– r.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 leave salary is not payable would be excluded – Rule is crystal clear and does not brook any two interpretations – Pension Scheme was sought to be introduced only couple of months before the VRS – It was ultimately implemented by the appellant, 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 – To avail the benefit of Pension Rules, an employee must qualify in terms of the Rules– Respondents do notdo so, as the period sought to be excluded from their qualifying service is one where they were admittedly not paid leave salary –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 –Pension Rules came into force much later, though the intention was announced just before the VRS – Respondents were not governed by these Rules, but by the Employees Contributory Provident Fund Scheme – Result may be the same as in Lillu Ram’s case, reasoningis slightly different from that view – Impugned order set aside –Interpretation of Statutes - Service Law.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 267
Petitioner	Delhi Transport Corporation
Respondent	Balwan Singh & Ors.
SCR	[2019] 4 S.C.R. 532
Judgement Date	2019-02-26
Case Number	7159

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwan Singh & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Smt. Magi H Desai

Government of Nct (delhi) and Another Vs. K. Srivatsan

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gandiba Behera

Brajendra Singh Yambem Vs. Union of India and Anr.

State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Manju Naik

D.v. Kapoor Vs. Union of India and Ors.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Amrik Singh

Union of India and Ors. Vs. L.v. Vishwanathan Etc.

Madhukar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwan Singh & Ors.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwan Singh & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Smt. Magi H Desai

Government of Nct (delhi) and Another Vs. K. Srivatsan

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gandiba Behera

Brajendra Singh Yambem Vs. Union of India and Anr.

State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Manju Naik

D.v. Kapoor Vs. Union of India and Ors.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Amrik Singh

Union of India and Ors. Vs. L.v. Vishwanathan Etc.

Madhukar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwan Singh & Ors.