Ranvir Singh Chhikara vs Delhi Transport Corporation And Ors

Heard Shri U. Srivastava, counsel for the applicant and Ms. Swati Jain, proxy counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleading  and all the documents produced by both the parties.

The relevant facts of the case are that the applicant is seeking a direction to the respondents to bring him on DTC Pension Scheme as he had opted for Pension Scheme in 2002 in response to the Office Order bearing no. Pen.Cell/Option/2002/440 dated 28.10.2002. That the DTC had floated the Pension Scheme in 1992 and sought options from all the employees. At that time the applicant did not opt for Pension Scheme instead he opted to remain covered under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPFS). Later on, as stated above in 2002 the DTC again came up with the above order and sought provisional option. But, however, for giving effect to the Office Order dated 28.10.2002, no exemption is required from the RPFC and in case the exemption is not granted by the said Commissioner, the option would become redundant. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted below:-

"DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI.

I.P.ESTATE: NEW DELHI.

No.Pen. Cell/Option/2002/440 Dated 28.10.2002

OFFICE ORDER

In compliance of the orders conveyed by Sh. Abhijit Sarkar, Secretary to Minister (Transport), Tourism and Power, Govt. of N.C.T.of Delhi vide letter No.PA/MOTTP/2002/11117 Dated 4.10.2002, it has been decided that the option from all the existing employees including those who are covered under the RPFC Scheme may obtain in the following condition:

i) xxx xxx

ii) xxx xxx

iii) Inviting/exercising option shall be provisional and subject to exemption from the RPFC and refund of the amount held by them. In case, no exemption is received from RPFC, this option shall become redundant, and the status of an employee shall be the same as is before the issue of these orders.

iv) xxx xxx

v) xxx xxx

Sd/-

(Ramesh Chander )

Addl. Chief Accounts Officer"

Though in view of the above order, provisional option was sought and was given by the applicant but because no exemption has been granted, the option became redundant and the Scheme did not materialize.

The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously contended that as he had submitted the provisional option in 2002 and his option was forwarded by the Depot Manager, the respondents should be directed to bring him on DTC Pension Scheme.

Identical cases came up and they attained finality by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rati Bhan Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,  reported  in  2011SCC  OnLine  Del 4394. The said Office Order of 2002 was discussed and held that the applicant therein was not entitled to be brought on DTC Pension Scheme. Again in DTC Vs Shri Jagdish Chandra and Ors decided on 32.03.2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8173/2016, in para 16 it is further  held  that  if  no  exemption  is  received  from  the  Regional Provident  Fund  Commissioner,  the  option  expressed  shall  become redundant. The para 16 of the said judgment is extracted below:

"The decision in Rati Bhan (supra) had interpreted clause (iii) of the Office Order dated 28th October,2002 in two parts. First, exercise of inviting options was provisional, i.e. subject to examination of feasibility of implementing the DTC Pension Scheme dated 27th November, 1992 to those who had expressed their desire to be covered by the said Scheme. Secondly, this was subject to exemption from the Regional Provisional Fund Commissioner and refund of the amount held with them. It was clarified that if no exemption was received from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the option express shall become redundant. The 2 stipulation were independent of one another, as has been held and decided in Rati Bhan's case (supra)."

Following the reasoning given in the above cases, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.