2019 (2) TMI 2105 - SC - Indian Laws

Employees taking Voluntary Retirement Scheme not entitled to pension for unauthorized absence periods without salary

Delhi Transport Corporation Versus Balwan Singh and Ors.

The SC held that employees who availed Voluntary Retirement Scheme were not entitled to pension as the period of unauthorized absence without salary could ... Admissibility of pension - Voluntary Retirement Scheme availed - disentitled to pension on account of exclusion of period when they remained absent without authorisation for which period they were held not entitled to salary - HELD THAT:- The period of leave for which salary is payable would be taken into account for determining the pensionable service, while the period for which leave salary is not payable would be excluded. The Rule is crystal clear and does not brook any two interpretations. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that when the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, there cannot be a recourse to any principle of interpretation other than the Rule of literal construction. The endeavour to refer to Rules 27 & 28 of the Pension Rules is of no avail, as those are dealing with the effect of interruption in service which may result in forfeiture of past service. In the present case, there has been no forfeiture of past service. In the given facts of the present case, an important aspect is noted, i.e., the Respondents were not governed by these Rules, but by the Employees Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The Pension Scheme was sought to be introduced only couple of months before the VRS, and that too was not implemented till 1995. Not only that, it was not implemented through the LIC but ultimately by the Appellant-Corporation itself, much later in 1995. Thus, the occasion for making any entries for this leave period in the service record, in terms of the Rules did not even arise at the stage when the VRS was applied. There are no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that to avail of the benefit of Pension Rules, an employee must qualify in terms of the Rules. In the present case, the Respondents unfortunately do not do so, as the period which is sought to be excluded from their qualifying service is one where they have admittedly not been paid leave salary. The qualifying period for the VRS would have to be governed by that Scheme and cannot ipso facto be imported into the entitlement of pension, contrary to the plain wordings of the Pension Rules. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the period of unauthorized absence without pay should be treated as part of the qualifying service for pension.2. Interpretation and application of Rules 27 & 28 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.3. Requirement of notice to employees regarding the non-qualification of certain periods for pension.4. The impact of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) on pension eligibility.5. The role of administrative instructions and service records in determining pension eligibility.Detailed Analysis:1. Unauthorized Absence and Qualifying Service for Pension:The core issue was whether periods of unauthorized absence without pay should count towards the qualifying service for pension. The court held that periods for which leave salary is not payable must be excluded from the qualifying service as per Rule 21 of the Pension Rules. The definition of 'qualifying service' under Rule 3(1)(q) includes only those periods where the employee was on duty or on paid leave. The court emphasized that the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and thus, must be interpreted literally.2. Interpretation and Application of Rules 27 & 28:The court examined Rules 27 and 28, which deal with the effect of interruptions in service and condonation of such interruptions. However, these rules were found to be inapplicable to the present case since they address the forfeiture of past service due to interruptions, which was not the issue here. The court clarified that these rules do not override the clear provisions of Rule 21 regarding the counting of periods for pension eligibility.3. Requirement of Notice to Employees:The respondents argued that they should have been notified that their unauthorized absence would not count towards qualifying service. The court referred to the Government of India decision dated 28.2.1976, which requires proper entries in the service records regarding non-qualifying periods. However, it was held that administrative instructions cannot supersede statutory rules. The court acknowledged the importance of making timely entries in the service records but maintained that the statutory rule's clear language prevails.4. Impact of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) on Pension Eligibility:The respondents availed of the VRS, which required a minimum of 10 years of service. The court noted that while VRS eligibility is based on the length of service, it does not automatically qualify an employee for pension unless the qualifying service criteria under the Pension Rules are met. The court highlighted that the Pension Rules and the VRS operate under different criteria, and compliance with one does not guarantee benefits under the other.5. Role of Administrative Instructions and Service Records:The court discussed various administrative instructions and service record requirements, including SR 200 and Government of India Orders, which emphasize the need for proper maintenance of service records and timely decisions on pension-related matters. However, the court reiterated that these administrative guidelines cannot alter the statutory requirements of the Pension Rules. The statutory hierarchy places rules and regulations above administrative instructions, and thus, the clear provisions of the Pension Rules must be followed.Conclusion:The court concluded that the respondents did not qualify for pension benefits as the periods of unauthorized absence without pay could not be counted towards the qualifying service. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. However, the court provided relief by stating that any payments already made to the respondents under interim orders should not be reclaimed by the appellant corporation.