Case: Dtc Retired Employees'Association  Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

2. The Delhi Transport Corporation (for short,introduced a Pension Scheme on 27.11.1992 for its retired employees. The Central Government sanctioned this scheme and it was to be operated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India on behalf of DTC. As per the scheme, all employees of DTC retiring on or after 3.8.1981 were to be covered for the purpose of pension benefit. The existing employees and those who retired on or after 3.8.1981 had to exercise their option for the Pension Scheme. The retired employees opting for the Pension Scheme had to refund theshare of provident fund received by them under the Employees Provident Fund Act with interest thereon. Those employees, who joined the service of DTC with effect from 27.11.1992 and thereafter, had no option but to be compulsorily covered under the Pension Scheme.3. It seems that because of certain financial difficulties, the Pension Scheme could not be implemented in time. The various employees associations filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court seeking implementation of the Pension Scheme. In addition, some retired employees of the DTC also filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court praying that the Pension Scheme should be made applicable to those employees also who had retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The High Court accepted that plea and held that the Pension Scheme be extended to them also provided the refund theshare of provident fund received by them under the E.P.F. Act at the time of retirement, with interest thereon. A yet another set of employees also filed a writ petition contending that while exercising their option, they were not liable to pay interest on theshare of provident fund. This writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.4. L.P.A. No. 33 of 1998 was an appeal filed before the Delhi High Court by DTC. Alongwith all other connected matters, the said L.P.A. was heard and a common judgment was passed on 16.3.2000 in all the matters, including those giving rise to the present appeals. Before the Division Bench of the High Court, various questions were raised by the parties. The DTC Retired Employees Association contended that DTC was not entitled to charge interest on the amount ofshare of provident fund which is required to be refunded by the retired employees while exercising option to avail the Pension Scheme. The Employees Association also contended that the excess amount of gratuity received by them was not liable to be returned and even if it is to be returned, they were not liable to pay interest on such gratuity. Some of the retired DTC employees had not exercised their option within the stipulated period. They contended that in view of Clause 9 of the Scheme even if they had not exercised their option, they would be deemed to have exercised their option in favour of the Scheme and thus they are entitled to get pension.5. In the writ petition filed by the retired employees under Article 32 of the Constitution, it is alleged that even though the Central Government had approved the Pension Scheme, no steps were taken by DTC to implement the same and the DTC Workers Union had to file a writ petition before this Court seeking implementation of the Scheme and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the Scheme was initiated, but the DTC later failed to implement the Scheme and the Life Insurance Corporation also withdrew itsin implementing the Scheme. The employees who had retired and opted for pension had not collected their share ofprovident fund and other benefits and were forced to back out and change their options for pension and later took their share of provident fund and gratuity because of the financial difficulties faced by them. It is alleged by them that though they had opted out of the Pension Scheme, they are also entitled to Pension. In the writ petition, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to extend the benefit of Pension to the writ petitioners and other employees irrespective of the fact whether they had opted for or opted out to the Pension Scheme, on the same terms and conditions as contained therein and to direct the respondents to pay arrears of pension.In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of DTC, it is alleged that the employees of DTC who were originally governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, filed a writ petition before this Court seeking directions for introduction of Pension Scheme for its employees and an assurance was given to this Court for introduction of a Scheme. It is stated that pursuant to the said assurance, the Pension Scheme was introduced on 27.1.1992, and an option was given to the employees to switch over to the Pension Scheme. The Scheme was approved by the Central Government but as the same could not be implemented, the employees initiated proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is stated that meanwhile on 3.3.1993, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme was also notified. Certain writ petitions were filed by the employees before the Delhi High Court. In some of the writ petitions, the question was whether the employees having less than 20 years of service but more than 10 years of service were entitled to Pension. The High Court held that those who had less than 20 years of service but more than 10 years of service would be entitled to get pro rata pension. In another writ petition, it was held by the High Court that those employees, who opted to retire under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme would be entitled to get pension, provided they refund theshare of provident fund and gratuity with interest thereon. In Writ Petition No. 1469 of 1996, the Delhi High Court held that DTC was not entitled to charge interest on the excess amount of gratuity to be refunded by the employees, but the DTC would be entitled to charge interest on the amount ofshare of provident fund. In another writ petition, a learned Single Judge of the High Court directed DTC to pay pension not only to those who had exercised their option within the stipulated period or within the extended period, but also to all other employees who would come forward to claim pension on the basis of their service with DTC. In Writ Petition No. 1292 of 1990, the High Court directed the DTC to pay pension to the writ petitioners who had not exercised their option within the prescribed period. It is further stated that DTC filed a writ appeal against these judgments and the Division Bench held that the employees who retired between 3.8.1981 and 27.11.1992 and had not exercised their option were not entitled to pension. However, it was held that the retired employees having less than 20 years qualifying service but more than 10 years were entitled to pension, even if they had opted for voluntary retirement. It was held that DTC was not entitled to charge interest on the excess amount of gratuity, though interest could be charged on the amount ofshare of provident fund received by the retired employees. Those employees who resigned from service after completing the qualifying period of service would also be entitled to get pension. It was held that those who had retired after 3.8.1981 but before 27.11.1992, and had not exercised their option were not entitled to get pension. Therefore, it is contended that the prayer in the writ petition to extend the benefit of pension to the petitioners therein and other employees irrespective of the fact whether they had exercised their option initially on the terms and conditions as contained therein, is without any basis.

Reasoning: It is also important to note that as per Claus 4 of the Scheme, those employees who joined DTC with effect from 23.11.1992 are compulsorily covered by the Scheme. Therefore, the Division Bench is perfectly justified in holding that the employees who retired on or after 3.8.1981 but before 27.11.1992 and had not exercised their option within the stipulated period or within the extended period, are not entitled to pension under thethe retired employees had utilised the money received to their advantage. Therefore, they are bound not return the same alongwith interest; otherwise, a section of the employees would be unduly benefitedother employees. Therefore, we do not think that such a clause in the Scheme is irrational or illegal. We do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the High Court.It was argued that in view of(5) of Section 4, the employees can receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer and as the provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act itself contemplate better terms of gratuity or other payment than what is permissible under the Act, the present Pension Scheme could only be construed as an award or agreement for better terms.It was argued that in view ofthat circumstance, the appellants are not liable to refund thein the present case the appellants received gratuity at the time of their exit from the service, subsequently they opted for pension which had never been a part of their service conditions. It is a condition precedent that in order to get the benefit of the Pension Scheme, they have to refund the gratuity received by them. It is neither illegal nor unjust.It is true that there was some delay in implementing the Scheme, but all the retired employees were given sufficient opportunity to exercise their option. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of DTC it is stated that as far as the time of fill up pension option form is concerned, the letter dated 23.11.1992 conveyed by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport, contained that the DTC shall obtain option from its employees within 30 days from the date of issue of circular. However, the DTC, in fact, extended the time twice, namely, firstly upto 15th January, 1993, and secondly upto 1st February, 1993. Therefore, the retired employees had, in fact, more than onetime to exercise their option. We do not think that sufficient time was not given to the employees to exercise their option for the Pension Scheme. Those employees who had received the benefit ofProvident Fund Scheme failed to exercise their option and thus disentitled themselves from getting the Pension benefit. The Pension Scheme was implemented on the basis of certain guidelines; it is not for the Court to interfere with the same. The Division Bench has rightly taken the view that those who had not exercised their option are not entitled to get Pension.