Satish Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Heard  Sh.  Jagdish  Chandra  Kundlia,  learned  counsel  for applicant and Ms. Mona Sinha for Ms. Ruchira Gupta, learned counsel for respondents.

The applicant was appointed temporarily to the post of Retainer Crew (RC) Driver w.e.f. 10.05.1989 in the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). During the course of said engagement as a RC Driver, the applicant was involved in a fatal accident case and was implicated by Police wherein FIR No.350/90 was filed against the applicant in Police Station, Parliament Street u/s 279/304A of IPC on 07.01.1990. Thereafter, the services of the applicant were terminated on 14.01.1991 on the ground of said accident case. The FIR was prosecuted further in Metropolitan Magistrate court wherein the Court acquitted the applicant vide judgment dated 02.01.1998. Thereafter, the applicant filed a Writ Petition No.384/2000 in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against his removal/termination from DTC. While this case was still subjudice in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, all such cases were dealt with under an out of court settlement process and as a part of this out of court settlement process, the applicant was re-inducted in service with a condition that the entire period from date of removal from service till reinduction will be treated as leave without pay and without any other service/monetary benefits. With this the applicant was reinduct w.e.f. 02.12.2003.

Thereafter, the services of the applicant were regularised w.e.f. 01.06.2004. The applicant was retired from service w.e.f. 29.02.2016.

The applicant pleads that throughout his service he was treated as an employee covered under DTC Pension Scheme. However, the same has been denied to him, which is the grievance in the instant OA.

The respondents pleaded that the terms and conditions of the RC Driver as contained in the original engagement letter dated 08.05.1989 are as follows:

"1. They will be paid @ Rs.39.35 paise per day for the days they actually perform duty. The daily minimum rates of wages are inclusive of Wages for weekly off day for which no seprate payment is necessary. The minimum amount payable shall stand reduced for the days of absence to the extent they would have earned daily wages on those days.

The appointment is purely temporary. Their service will be liable to be dispensed with at any time without notice and without assigining any reason thereafter.

Xxx  xxx xxx

Their services will be liable to be dispensed with in case they are found to be having directly or indirectly by themselves or by partners of any other persons or agent any interest in any contract or work with the Corporation.

Xxx  xxx xxx

During the period of retainership they will have to arrange for the bail themselves in case they are involved in any accident."

Once the applicant was involved in a fatal accident, his services were terminated and it was only subsequent to out of court settlement in follow up of pendency of a Writ Petition (C) no.391/2000, DTC vs. Kalu Ram that out of court settlement was resorted to. As a result of this out of court settlement and reinduction, the terms and conditions were as under:

"1. That Shri Satish Kumar will be re-induct to the post of Retainer Crew Driver but without wages from the date of his services were dispensed with till he reports for duty. The intervening period shall be treated as dies non.

His re-induction is purely on daily wages. His service will be liable to be dispensed with at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason therefor.

That the period of absence from duty of Sh. Satish Kumar from the date his service were dispensed with, till he reports for duty, will be treated as leave without pay and without any other service/monetary benefits.

That the workman will, however, retain his notional seniority in the cadre of RC Driver, but the intervening period will not be taken into account for the purpose of Leave benefits, bonus and other ancillary benefits etc.

That he will have also to withdraw the case from the court which is still pending.

The other terms and conditions of his appointment as Retainer Crew Driver shall be the same as embodied in the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 as amended upto date and as may be amended hereinafter by DTC. He will also be governed and bound by all other rules and regulations framed by the DTC hereinafter."

DTC introduced a DTC Pension Scheme on 27.11.1992 and the existing employees of DTC were given a time period of 30 days from 27.11.1992 onwards, to opt for the newly introduced DTC Pension Scheme or to continue in already existing Contributing Provident Fund Scheme (CPF Scheme). However, this Scheme was compulsory for all the new employees. The said DTC Pension Scheme was discontinued w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and all employees joining service on or after 01.01.2004 were to be covered under CPF Scheme. The applicant retired from service w.e.f. 29.02.2016 on his attaining the age of superannuation vide letter dated 18.02.2016. At the relevant point of time, when options were to be exercised, the employee was not under the service of the DTC w.e.f. 27.11.1992 till 01.01.2004. Thus, he could not exercise that option and at this stage it is not possible to permit that exercising of option from a retrospective date.

The respondents also brought out that the entry on the first page of his service book that he is a DTC Pension optee was incorrect. However, this error had come to the notice by the time he was made to retire, and therefore, benefit cannot accrue to him on the basis of this incorrect entry in service record.

The matter has been heard at length. The applicant's services were terminated w.e.f. 14.01.1991 and it was only subsequently after out of court settlement that the applicant was reinstated in service w.e.f. 02.12.2003 and the services were thereafter regularised w.e.f. 01.06.2004 only. On the date of regularisation, as per the new instructions, the policy in force was CPF Scheme and as such the provisions of DTC Pension Scheme cannot be made applicable to the applicant. In the event, the OA is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.