O. A. No. 3423/2010. Case: 1. Jagdish Chandra S/o Late Udai Ram, 2. S. K. Mohadikar S/o K. M. Mohadikar, 3. Harvinder Kumar Arora S/o Devi Dayal Arora, 4. Nirmal Bisht W/o Lok Pal Singh Bisht, 5. Shanti Verma W/o Tilak Raj Verma, 6. Vimal Kumar Vajpayee S/o Late Shiv Mangal Vajpayee, 7. Ramesh Kumar Sharma S/o J. P. Sharma, 8. Naresh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Ram Kishan Sharma, 9. Kuldeep Raj Sharma S/o R. C. Sharma Vs 1. Delhi Transport Corporation, Government of NCT, Through its Chairman cum Managing Director, 2. Government of NCTD, Through Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Transport Department, 3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O. A. No. 3423/2010 |
| Judges | G. George Paracken (Judicial Member) & Dr. Veena Chhotray (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 |
| Judgement Date | July 11, 2011 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
Dr. Veena Chhotray (Accountant Member), (Principal Bench New Delhi)
-
Through this OA, the following reliefs have been sought:-
8.A. Direct the respondents to allow the applicants to switch over to the DTC's existing Pension Scheme, introduced vide Office Order No.16 dated 27.11.1992 as modified by the Central Government on 31.10.1995; and
B. grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may consider just and proper.
-
The present order is being passed after hearing the learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Asha Jain Madan and the learned counsels Shri Ajesh Luthra together with Shri Keshav Mohan representing the Respondents.
-
The applicants (9 in number) are employees of the DTC. All except one among them - who is stated to have retired - are still working under the Respondent-Corporation. Admittedly, in pursuance of the DTC's Pension Scheme introduced vide its Office Order dated 27.11.1992, they had exercised options to remain under the EPF. However, it is contended by the applicants learned counsel that they had subsequently opted in favour of DTC's Pension Scheme in pursuance of the Office Order dated 28.10.2002.
-
The prayer for a switch over has been made on the grounds that the 1992 Scheme had never come to be operationalized for the reasons of the backing out of the LIC through which this Scheme was to be operated. Further, it has been averred that the Pension Scheme circulated vide the DTC's order dated 31.10.1995 was a new Scheme, as the operator of the Scheme had been changed. Instead of the LIC, the Scheme now was made to be operationalized by the DTC itself. As per the learned counsel, the new Scheme was much more beneficial to the employees. It is further stated that in this background options sought vide the earlier Office Order No.16 dated 27.11.1992 were null and void and fresh options should have been invited at that point of time.
-
On a specific query from the Bench regarding the status of the applicants and the reliefs claimed in the present OA qua the decision of the Delhi High Court as delivered vide its judgment dated 18.8.2010 in Writ Petition No.14027/2009 {DTC vs Madhu Bhushan Anand) along with other connected Writ Petitions and the Full Bench decision of this Tribunal dated 24.3.2011; it would be submitted by the learned counsel Ms Madan that the present case is factually distinguishable and the aforesaid judgments are not applicable. To substantiate the argument, it would be pointed out that the applicants in those cases were all retired employees under the VRS. Besides, they had also taken the employer's share of the Contributory Provident Fund. As per the learned counsel since these two critical facts are different...
To continue reading
Request your trial