1. The applicant was appointed as Conductor on 18.11.1982. The applicant was dismissed from service on 26.03.1988. Thereafter, the applicant was reinstated in service on 17.10.1989. The respondents introduce the Pension Scheme on 27.11.1992. Again the applicant was removed from service on 03.08.1995. Thereafter, the Circular dated 22.04.1996 was issued circulating the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The applicant was directed to be reinstated on 05.06.2009 as per the Order of Labour Court and accordingly, he was re-institated on 20.09.2010 in the respondent corporation.
2. At the outset, it is disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant that he exercised option from 27.11.1992 to 03.08.1995 when the Scheme was in existence.
3. It is case of the applicant that from 2010-2016, the respondent corporation put the code “S” on the applicant’s pay slip which denoting that he had opted for D.T.C pension and deductions from his salary were being made accordingly.
4. It is not a disputed fact that the applicant superannuated from service on 07.03.2016. It is case of the applicant that the applicant should be considered as per clause 9 of Scheme dated 27.11.1992. It is also not disputed that applicant received CPF benefits at the time of his superannuation in accordance with rule position. Till the date of superannuation, the applicant did not make any representation despite of having knowledge of the fact that with regard to be covered under the Pension Scheme dated 27.11.1992. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant was treated as deemed under clause 9 of the Scheme Pension optee. The applicant further relies upon the response of RTI No. SNPD/RTI/2016/478 dated 19.09.2016 where following words’ meaning has been mentioned:-
“S= DTC Pension
E= EPS -95 Pension
Z= No Pension”
5. First representation of the applicant was made in 2017 requesting for pension. Thereafter on 09.08.2017, the respondent corporation provided information under RTI that no changes regarding time to take option were made in order no. 16 dated 27.11.1992.
6. The basis of the present OA is only an Office Communication dated 22.6.2018 under the RTI Act, 2005 wherein it has recorded as under:-
REFERENCE:- LETTER NO. RTI/APPEAL/ORDER3211, 3212, 3213, 3235, 2018/453 DATE 05/06/18-- ---/RTI/P.I.O/2048/230 DATE 07-06-18
A request has been made to get information under the right to public information Act sought by Mr. Chandra Rattan Bajaj. r/o 378, Sec-15A Faridabad, Haryana are as follows:-
On this date 19.06.18 depot manager Sukhdev Vihar Depot, Kalkaji depot and accountant srinivas puri depot along with deputy manager (pension), deputy manager (salary) and additional ACO personally along with Mr. Chandra rattan ex conductor B.C. 18020 Token No. 38126. Discussion took place in the case related to pension in which it was concluded not opted have been shown in the service book only on the basis of the option form filled by the employee. But due to the mistake of Delhi Transport Corporation, “S” is shown in the pay slip of the employee. On the basis of the above facts, all expressed their consent in respect of not opted pension.”
7. In view of above information received, it has been highlighted that the applicant had filled the application form wherein he had expressed not opted for pension. Therefore, mistake committed due to clerical error and the applicant is shown under “S” category, wherein he is entitled to be opted for pension.
8. During the course of hearing at admission stage itself, the learned standing counsel Mr. Ajesh Luthra appearing on behalf of DTC placed on record the Service Book of the applicant (with original records) bearing staff no. 18020 T. No. 38126, where the applicant is shown to have not opted for pension which had been duly signed by the applicant. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the respondents/DTC has also produced the original. Even the service book has been produced by learned counsel for respondents where it has been endorsed that the applicant has not opted for pension
9. Learned counsel for the applicant disputes the same. Learned counsel for the applicant stressfully urged that the D.T.C Employees Superannuation Pension Trust was introduced on 27.11.1992 and the office order of even date clearly provided that if no option is given within 30 days of the date of the Office Order, the employee shall be deemed to have opted for D.T.C. Pension. Moreover, the applicant is a deemed pension optee and it is evident from a bare perusal of the record that the service book and the option form purportedly claimed to have been signed by the Applicant (which the Applicant has consistently maintained that was never signed or filled or given by him) have been later on after the Applicant had become a deemed pension optee was with malafide manipulated to somehow deprive the Applicant of his right to get D.T. C. Pension and such conduct amounts to malice in fact and malice in law as well.
10. After perusing the records along with service book and annexure form, this Tribunal is of the view that the impugned order is RTI information only which cannot be made the basis of relief for grant of pension in terms of office order dated 27.11.1992 at belated stage. Furthermore, the applicant, despite of having full knowledge about the fact that he had not opted for pension, he is trying to mislead this Tribunal by stating and/or disputing even his signature on the option form. It is unfortunate that the applicant is very cleverly trying to wriggle out and press upon for implementation of the pension scheme dated 27.11.992 as same being applicable to him. It is also unfortunate that despite having been retired on 07.03.2016. The submission are made on behalf of the applicant on instruction that the applicant earlier dismissed from service and again reinstated again removed from service and again reinstated, till such time the applicant had never made representation with regard to implementation of the said scheme. All along what he has been urged is just that he has been making representation after post retirement since 2017 till 2018. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the impugned order that is order under RTI stipulating to be an order rejecting the case of the applicant for consideration of the pension scheme dated 27.11.1992, the same is also hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the applicant making submission to urge and distinguish his case from a well settled law passed by the Hon’ble High court in W.P (C) No. 14027/2009 in the matter of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Madhu Bhusan Anand which was delivered on 10.08.2010, which was further upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 31241/2010 dismissed on 3.12.2010. The operative portion of the said judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court reads as under :-
“19. No discernable reasons are forthcoming from the decision of the Tribunal save and except that the Tribunal has treated his entitlement in terms of clause 9 of the pension scheme dated 27.11.1992, ignoring the fact that clause 9 applied to the serving employees of DTC and in respect of those who had retired prior to the promulgation of the notification dated 27.11.1992, were required to exercise a positive option to be given pension with concomitant act of refunding the management's share received by them under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, vide para 6 of the notification dated 27.11.1992. Indeed, this has been so held by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision dated 16.3.2000 in LPA No.33/1998 DTC Vs. Sh.Baijnath Bhargav & Ors. which decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2001) 6 SCC 61 DTC Retired Employees Association & Ors. Vs. DTC & Ors.
20. Thus, as regards W.P.(C) No.3339/2010 is concerned, noting that the respondent therein could not be treated as a deemed optee for the pension scheme and having not specifically opted for the pension scheme and having received all dues payable to him when he retired as per the amount lying to his credit as a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and obviously he having not opted for the pension scheme and thus not having returned the management's contribution pertaining to him and as credited in his account as a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, said respondent would have no case at all.
28. Suffice would it be to state that a bare perusal of the orders referred to by learned counsel, evidence that a printed proforma has been used. The same pertained to the earlier VRS Schemes. It is settled law that rights are determined not with reference to the language of the proforma but the statute or the scheme applicable. The said two petitioners submitted offers to be voluntarily retired under the schemes notified on 5.12.1994 and 8.12.1995. Further, they received the cheques tendered to them which included the management's share in the Contributory Provident Fund Account. These cheques were received by them on 31.3.1995 and 31.10.1995 respectively. They encashed the cheques. We may note that these two petitioners had filed writ petitions in the year 2005 and 2007 respectively laying a claim for pension which were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and registered as TA No.689/2009 and TA No.1385/2009 respectively, which have been dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 23.9.2009. The claim of these writ petitioners would even otherwise be barred by the law of limitation. The principle that right to receive pension is a continuous cause of action is not available to them inasmuch as qua them, the issue was whether they were entitled to receive dues as per Contributory Provident Fund Scheme or under the pension scheme. They were paid full dues when they retired on 31.3.1995 and 31.10.1995 respectively as per the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and if they had any grievance pertaining to the same, it had to be brought before a Competent Court within at most 3 years thereafter.
38. Qua the stand taken by the respondent of W.P.(C) No.756/2010, suffice would it be to state that DTC has produced the letter written by him under his signatures. It is a handwritten letter. He has not denied that the writing is not his. He has not denied his signatures thereon. His vague denial that he never wrote the letter, without taking specific stand is neither here nor there. Further, as we would be noticing qua the other respondents he received the CPF dues when he retired with effect from 31.5.1993 and thereafter received the CPF dues and kept quiet till he filed a writ petition in this Court in the year 2008 which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 2009 and was registered as TA No.1449/2009
44. In our opinion these respondents have no claim whatsoever to receive pension. They novated the contract by volition when they subsequently opted out of the pension scheme and DTC accepted the same and paid to them even the management's share in the CPF account. Their claims are hit by delay, laches and limitation. They are not entitled to plead that right to receive pension is a continuous cause of action, for the reason, in law either pension can be received or benefit under the CPF account. If the management forces down the gullet of an employee payment under the CPF Scheme and the employee desires pension he has to approach the Court or the Tribunal within a maximum period of 3 years being the limitation prescribed to file a suit.”
11. For the reasons and mentioned above and also the law already settled by the Hon’ble High Court in DTC Vs. Madhu Bhushan Anand as upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, there is not merit in the present OA. Learned counsel for the respondents stress upon imposition of cost in such cases. However, considering the applicant being a senior citizen, no cost is awarded.
12. OA is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
