Case Details: Ashok Kumar Dabas vs. Delhi Transport Corporation - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 327 (SC)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Rajesh Bindal & Manmohan, JJ.
- Narender Kumar Verma, Aor for the Petitioner.
- Aviral Saxena, AOR, Abhinav Sharma, Paritosh Goyal & Vedant Varshney, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the Deceased employee was working with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). He had resigned from his job with the respondent, which is a corporation, after putting in more than 20 years of service. The competent authority accepted his resignation.
Later, his legal heirs claimed the release of the deceased employee’s pensionary benefits. The Respondent informed him that he was found entitled only to the provident fund and no other benefits.
The Tribunal and the High Court upheld the order of the respondent. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.
It was noted that Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, clearly shows that the resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service. Further, in terms of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee who had rendered not less than five years of service would be entitled to the payment of gratuity, regardless of the fact that he had retired or resigned from the service.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court held that since the deceased employee had resigned from service, his legal heirs were not entitled to any pension. Further, since the respondent could not establish that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, did not apply to the Corporation, the legal heirs of the deceased employee were held entitled to receive the gratuity in terms of the provisions of the 1972 Act for the service rendered by him. Therefore, they were also entitled to receive an amount towards their leave encashment.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Order of High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 13642-2018, dated 20-12-2022 (para 12) reversed
List of Cases Referred to
- Ashok Kumar Dabas v. Delhi Transport Corporation [O. A. No. 4645 of 2015, dated 24-9-2018] (para 2)
- Ashok Kumar Dabas v. Delhi Transport Corporation [R. A. No. 207 of 2018, dated 29-10-2018] (para 2)
- Shashikala Devi v. Central Bank of India [2015] 12 taxmann.com 790 (SC) (para 5.1)
- Reserve Bank of India v. Cecil Dennis Solomon [2004] 2003 taxmann.com 4421 (SC) (para 5.1)
- Shanti Devi v. Delhi Transport Corporation [W. P. (C) No. 4871 of 2010, dated 15-10-2012] (para 5.1)
- Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ram Kishan [W. P. (C) No. 2627 of 2015, dated 17-3-2015] (para 5.1)
- BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma [2019] 112 taxmann.com 128 (SC) (para 6)
- Raj Kumar v. Union of India 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10877 (para 6).
The post Resigned DTC Employee’s Heirs Not Entitled To Pension | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
