Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Mool Chand

Supreme Court2 December 2008Aftab Alam · Markandey Katju

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a Voluntary Retirement Scheme expressly provides that employees who opt for VRS benefits will not receive pension, that express provision is binding and operates to exclude the right to pension notwithstanding any provision for pension in an earlier VRS scheme that the employee did not avail of.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV
SUPREME COURT OF INDIARECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7258 OF 2002

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Appellant (s)

VERSUS

MOOL CHAND Respondent(s)

WITH Civil Appeal NO. 2301 of 2007 (With office report) Civil Appeal NO. 2302 of 2007 (With office report) Civil Appeal NO. 4434 of 2003 (With prayer for interim relief and office report)

Date: 02/12/2008 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM

For Appellant(s) Ms. A.Subhashini,Adv.

Ms. A.Subhashini

For Respondent(s) Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv.

Mr. B.D. Sharma Mr. L.N. Gupta Mrs Lalita Kaushik

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Indu Satija) Court Master Court Master REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7258 OF 2002

Delhi Transport Corporation ..Appellant

versus

Mool Chand ..Respondent

ORDER

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court

dated 06th November, 2001. It appears that there was a Voluntary Retirement Scheme

(for short 'VRS') in the Delhi Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the

'Corporation', in 1993 which contained a provision for pension. The respondent herein

did not apply under that VRS Scheme.

Subsequently, the Corporation framed a new Scheme dated 13.12.1995 in

which it was specifically stated that those employees who opt for VRS under the new

Scheme will not get pension. Respondent, admittedly, applied under this scheme.

Since, there was a specific provision in the VRS Scheme dated 13.12.1995, we

fail to see how the High Court has held that the respondent will get pension in addition

to VRS benefits.

In view of above, we find that the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous and it is hereby set aside.

The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No Order as to costs.

Civil Appeal Nos.2301/2007 and 2302/2007

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeals has stated that

in view of the earlier order of this Court dated 12th March, 2007 passed in Special Leave

Petition(C)No.4135 of 2007, these appeals may be dismissed. We order accordingly.

..........................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; ...........................J. DECEMBER 02, 2008. [AFTAB ALAM]

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free