Delhi Transport Corporation Pension Dispute: Supreme Court Rules Against Employee Claim

The case of Karan Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. highlights a significant legal dispute over pension eligibility under the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) pension scheme. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Karan Singh, ruling that he did not meet the minimum qualifying service requirement of ten years to claim pension benefits.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Karan Singh, joined DTC as a trainee conductor on March 15, 1983. He was formally appointed as a conductor on May 27, 1983, and later given regular employment on November 27, 1983. In 1992, DTC introduced a pension scheme applicable to employees who opted in. The appellant took voluntary retirement on April 30, 1993, under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), which required a minimum of ten years of service for pension eligibility.

The appellant claimed that his service, including his training period, qualified him for the pension scheme. However, DTC rejected his claim, arguing that his total qualifying service fell short of ten years when excluding unpaid leave and training.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant argued:

• His total service, including training and unpaid leave, exceeded ten years.
• Under Rule 22 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, training should be counted towards pension eligibility.
• He had completed 10 years, 1 month, and 19 days of service if training was included.

Arguments by the Respondents

DTC countered that:

• The appellant’s net qualifying service was only 9 years, 1 month, and 25 days.
• Training and unpaid leave could not be counted as pensionable service.
• The appellant did not meet the required ten-year threshold.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Court, led by Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi, ruled:

“The period of leave for which salary is payable would be taken into account for determining pensionable service, while the period for which leave salary is not payable would be excluded.”

The Court held that the appellant’s claim was unsustainable because:

• Training could not be counted as qualifying service.
• Unpaid leave must be deducted from total service.
• He failed to meet the ten-year requirement.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Delhi High Court’s decision that the appellant was ineligible for pension under the DTC scheme.

Conclusion

This ruling underscores the importance of meeting explicit service duration requirements in pension schemes and clarifies that unpaid leave and training periods do not contribute to qualifying service.

Petitioner Name: Karan Singh.
Respondent Name: Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 22-10-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Karan Singh vs Delhi Transport Corp Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 22-10-2019.pdf