Date of the Judgment: 22 October 2019
Citation: Karan Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., Civil Appeal No(s). 12743 of 2017
Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can an employee of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) claim pension benefits if they have not completed the minimum qualifying service period? The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue, focusing on the calculation of qualifying service for pension eligibility under the DTC’s pension scheme. The Court examined whether the appellant, who had taken voluntary retirement, met the minimum service requirement to be eligible for pension benefits. The bench consisted of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi, with the judgment authored by Justice Rastogi.
Case Background
The appellant, Karan Singh, was initially directed to report for training as a Retainer Crew or Conductor on 10th February 1983. After completing training from 15th March 1983 to 26th May 1983, he was appointed as a Conductor effective from 27th May 1983. He was later given a regular appointment as a monthly rate conductor from 27th November 1983. The Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) introduced a pension scheme in 1992, which was to be operated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). Subsequently, a voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) was introduced in 1993. Karan Singh, having crossed 40 years of age, applied for voluntary retirement, which was accepted on 30th April 1993.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 9th February 1983 | Appellant directed to report for training. |
| 10th February 1983 | Appellant directed to report at T.S. Training School, IPD for training. |
| 15th March 1983 to 26th May 1983 | Appellant underwent training. |
| 24th May 1983 | Appellant offered appointment as Conductor. |
| 27th May 1983 | Appellant’s appointment as Conductor took effect. |
| 27th November 1983 | Appellant given regular appointment as monthly rate conductor. |
| 27th November 1992 | DTC introduced a pension scheme. |
| 3rd March 1993 | DTC notified the voluntary retirement scheme. |
| 30th April 1993 | Appellant’s voluntary retirement was accepted. |
| 22nd October 2019 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the DTC to pay pension and other benefits. However, the High Court of Delhi set aside the CAT’s order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) introduced a pension scheme vide Office Order No. 16 dated 27th November 1992. The scheme stated that it would be operated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The pension scheme was made applicable to existing employees, including those retired from 3rd August 1981 onwards. The scheme provided an option to choose between the pension scheme and the Employees Contributory Provident Fund. Employees who did not exercise any option within 30 days were deemed to have opted for the pension scheme.
The Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) introduced on 3rd March 1993, stated that employees with 10 years of service or 40 years of age were eligible for voluntary retirement.
The Supreme Court also referred to Rule 3(1)(q) and Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972. Rule 3(1)(q) defines “qualifying service” as service rendered while on duty or otherwise, which is taken into account for pensions and gratuities. Rule 21 specifies that all leave during service for which leave salary is payable counts towards qualifying service.
Arguments
The appellant argued that his qualifying service should include his training period and the period he worked as a Retainer Crew Conductor. He calculated his total qualifying service to be 10 years, 1 month, and 19 days. The appellant also contended that the 98 days of leave without pay should not be excluded from the qualifying service.
The respondent Corporation contended that the appellant’s qualifying service was only 9 years, 1 month, and 25 days. They argued that the training period and the period as a Retainer Crew Conductor should not be included in the qualifying service. They also argued that the 98 days of leave without pay should be excluded from the qualifying service.
The respondent relied on the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, specifically Rule 21, which stipulates that only leave for which salary is payable can be included in the qualifying service.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Calculation of Qualifying Service |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: Calculation of Qualifying Service |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the appellant had completed 10 years of qualifying service to be eligible for pension under the pension scheme introduced by the Corporation dated 3rd March, 1993.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant had completed 10 years of qualifying service for pension eligibility. | The Court held that the appellant did not complete the minimum qualifying service of 10 years. | The Court excluded the training period, the period as Retainer Crew Conductor, and the 98 days of leave without pay from the qualifying service. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
- Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972:
- Rule 3(1)(q) – Defines “qualifying service.”
- Rule 21 – Specifies that only leave for which salary is payable counts towards qualifying service.
- Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwan Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7159 of 2014) – Supreme Court: This case clarified that 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.
| Authority | Type | How the Court Considered It |
|---|---|---|
| Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 | Statute | The Court relied on Rule 3(1)(q) and Rule 21 to determine what constitutes qualifying service and which leave periods can be included. |
| Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwan Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7159 of 2014), Supreme Court | Case Law | The Court followed the precedent set in this case, which clarified the treatment of leave without pay in calculating qualifying service for pension. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim that training period should be included in qualifying service. | Rejected. The Court held that the training period was not a service rendered in the Corporation. |
| Appellant’s claim that the period as Retainer Crew Conductor should be included in qualifying service. | Rejected. The Court held that this period was neither training nor service rendered in the Corporation. |
| Appellant’s claim that 98 days of leave without pay should be included in qualifying service. | Rejected. The Court relied on the decision in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwan Singh & Ors.* and Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 to hold that leave without pay cannot be included in qualifying service. |
The Court relied on the decision in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwan Singh & Ors.*, where it was held that only 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.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the strict interpretation of the pension rules and the precedent set by its own previous judgment. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory rules and the need for a literal interpretation when the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous. The court also highlighted that the pension rules have a statutory force, and employees cannot claim ignorance of these rules. The court also emphasized that the qualifying service must be computed as per the rules.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to Statutory Rules | 40% |
| Precedent of Previous Judgment | 30% |
| Literal Interpretation of Statute | 20% |
| Computation of Qualifying Service as per Rules | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court observed, “In our view, the only aspect which is required to be considered is the requirement of the specific rule of the Pension Rules, which provides for admissibility of pension.” The Court further stated, “Rule 21 is quite 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.” Finally, the Court held, “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.”
The Court did not find any dissenting opinions.
Key Takeaways
- Qualifying service for pension eligibility is strictly determined by the applicable pension rules.
- Training periods and periods of service not considered as regular employment may not be included in the qualifying service.
- Leave without pay is generally excluded from the calculation of qualifying service for pension benefits.
- The literal interpretation of pension rules is crucial in determining pension eligibility.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than dismissing the appeal.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that qualifying service for pension must be strictly computed according to the applicable rules, and periods of training or leave without pay are generally not included. This case reinforces the principle established in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwan Singh & Ors.* regarding the exclusion of leave without pay from qualifying service. This case does not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirms the existing legal position.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the appellant was not eligible for pension benefits due to insufficient qualifying service. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific rules of the pension scheme and the precedent set by its previous judgments. The Court held that the training period, the period as a retainer crew conductor and the period of leave without pay could not be included in the calculation of qualifying service, as per the rules.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Pension
Child Category: Qualifying Service
Child Category: Delhi Transport Corporation
Parent Category: Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972
Child Category: Rule 21, Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972
Child Category: Rule 3(1)(q), Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972
FAQ
Q: What is qualifying service for pension?
A: Qualifying service is the period of employment that is considered for calculating pension benefits. It generally includes regular service and may exclude periods of training or leave without pay, as per the applicable rules.
Q: Can training periods be included in qualifying service?
A: Generally, training periods are not included in qualifying service unless specifically provided for in the relevant rules.
Q: Does leave without pay count towards qualifying service for pension?
A: No, leave without pay is generally excluded from the calculation of qualifying service for pension benefits.
Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?
A: The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of strictly adhering to pension rules and precedents when determining pension eligibility. It clarifies that only periods of service for which salary is paid are included in the qualifying service.