Summary
Answering the reference, the Court held that eligibility for DTC’s voluntary-retirement scheme did not itself establish the qualifying service required for pension. Under the applicable pension rules, the unpaid leave periods in issue were excluded. The result in Lillu Ram was sustained on somewhat different reasoning. Amounts already paid to the employees were protected from recovery.
Issues
- Whether service sufficient for VRS eligibility necessarily qualified for pension despite periods of leave without salary.
- Whether service-book instructions or rules concerning interruption and forfeiture displaced the pension rule governing leave.
Provisions considered
- Rules 3(1)(q), 21 and 49(1), Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972Pension eligibility depended on qualifying service under the rules. The unpaid periods in question did not count; the leave categories expressly protected by Rule 21 remained part of that framework. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 19, 20, 24, 25)
- Rules 27 and 28, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972These concerned interruption and forfeiture of past service. No forfeiture of past service was involved here, so they did not resolve whether the unpaid period itself qualified. (¶¶ 10, 11, 21)
- SR 200; decisions dated 28 February 1976 and 24 June 1966, Supplementary Rules; Government of India administrative instructionsRequirements for prompt service-book entries could not supersede the governing pension rule. The employees had previously been governed by the contributory provident-fund scheme. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23)
Held
- An employee claiming pension must satisfy the applicable statutory rules. Eligibility under the VRS and qualifying service for pension were distinct; the former could not be imported into the latter contrary to those rules. (¶¶ 20, 24)
- The relevant unpaid leave periods were excluded under Rule 21 read with the definition of qualifying service. Rules concerning interruption and forfeiture were inapposite because past service had not been forfeited. (¶¶ 20, 21, 24)
- Administrative instructions on entries and verification could not override the rules. Moreover, the pension scheme had not been implemented when these employees applied for VRS, so the asserted omission of pension-related entries had to be considered in that setting. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- The Court reached the same result as Lillu Ram through somewhat different reasoning. To avoid grave hardship, DTC was prohibited from recovering amounts already paid, particularly pursuant to the interim order. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
Result
Appeal allowed and High Court order set aside; parties to bear their own costs. DTC directed not to recover payments already made to the respondents.