Suresh Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC)

1
Item No. 64 O.A. No. 2712/2021
Court No. IV

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi

O.A. No . 2712/2021

Reserved on:- 01.10.2026
Pronounced on:-22.10.2026


Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

Suresh kumar S/ o
Shri Mansa Ram
Village & Post office
Bhatgaon Maliyan
Distt. Sonipat .Haryana

...Applicant

(By Advocates: Mr. Gauraan with Ms. Ashu Tiwari, Ms. Muskan Jain, Ms.
Kanchan, Ms. Samridhi, Ms. Khushi & Ms. Darsana)

Versus


Delhi Transport Corporation
Through Its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director I.P. Estate, New Delhi
…Respondent

(By Advocate: Ms. Arti Mahajan with Mr. Nusrat Khatoon)


ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:04+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

2
Item No. 64 O.A. No. 2712/2021
Court No. IV

ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

By way of the present O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“I) Direct the respondents to compute the pension of the Applicant by taking into
account his service w.e.f 13.04.1976 till his date of retirement after attaining the
age of superannuation viz; 31.08.2014;

II) Direct the respondents to grant arears of pay w.e.f. 13.01.1986 to 05.02.1997
to the Applicant after fixation of his pay by granting him the benefits of notional
increments earned by him along with benefits of ACP and other legal dues;

III) Quash and set aside the memo dated 13.01.1986 vide which 13.01.1986
Applicant was given fresh appointment as a Retainer Crew Conductor w.e.f.
14.01.1986 and was allotted fresh badge No. 23900 in an illegal manner and
consequently directing respondents to grant the benefit of continuity of service to
the Applicant w.e.f 13.04.1976;

N) Pass such further and other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the present OA has been filed seeking continuity of service
w.e.f. 13.04.1976, counting the applicant’s past service for pensionary
benefits, revision of pension and consequential benefits, including arrears of
pay and notional increments.
2.1. Learned counsel contended that the applicant, who was initially
appointed as Work Charge Apprentice in 1976 and regularized as Conductor
in 1977, was repeatedly terminated and reinstated, and that the respondents,
despite assuring reappointment vide letter dated 05.09.1985, appointed him
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:04+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

3
Item No. 64 O.A. No. 2712/2021
Court No. IV

afresh as Retainer Crew Conductor vide memorandum dated 13.01.1986,
thereby denying him continuity of service.
2.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
vide order dated 20.12.1996, directed reinstatement with continuity of
service without back wages, and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, vide
order dated 17.03.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 945/2015, upheld the treatment of
the period from 18.07.1987 to 05.12.1996 as duty for the relevant service
benefits; however, the respondents have incorrectly recorded the applicant’s
date of entry into service as 09.06.1998 in the PPO, without counting his
earlier service.
2.3. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Punjab School Education Board v. Satnam Singh ,
2026 OnLine SC 1806, to contend that artificial or notional breaks in
service, including those arising from court orders, ought to be ignored while
determining qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The relevant para of
the said judgment, reads as under:
“30. Here, too, the Single Judge and Division Bench had rightly held that
the services by respondent-employees rendered on contract/ad hoc/daily
wage basis prior to regularization must be computed as qualifying service
for the purpose of retiral and pension benefits. The breaks in service were
either ‘notional’ or artificial/administrative breaks, or precipitated by
Court orders. They must be ignored and the service should be treated as
continuous.”
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the same is barred by res judicata , limitation under Section
21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and constitutes an abuse of
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:04+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

4
Item No. 64 O.A. No. 2712/2021
Court No. IV

the process of law, as the reliefs sought had already been agitated in O.A.
No. 3052/2011, followed by W.P. (C) No. 945/2015 and SLP (C) No.
2317/2016, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
22.01.2016, with the subsequent review and curative petitions also having
been dismissed.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the present OA, filed on
10.11.2021, challenges the order dated 13.01.1986 after an inordinate delay
of more than 35 years, without sufficient cause for condonation, and is
therefore barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985.

3.2. On merits, learned counsel contended that the applicant was given a
fresh appointment as Retainer Crew Conductor w.e.f. 14.01.1986 vide order
dated 13.01.1986, which he accepted in writing on 10.01.1986, and is
consequently estopped from challenging the fresh appointment or claiming
continuity of service prior thereto.

3.3. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents it is
submitted that the applicant’s counsel had, during the proceedings
concerning condonation of delay, confined the claim for pensionary benefits
to the period from 1986 onwards, as recorded in the Tribunal’s order dated
13.02.2023.

3.4. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the period from
14.01.1986 to 01.06.1998 was spent as Retainer Crew Conductor on daily
wages, without regular salary, and cannot be counted towards qualifying
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:04+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

5
Item No. 64 O.A. No. 2712/2021
Court No. IV

service for pension, which was rightly computed w.e.f. 02.06.1998, when
the applicant was brought on monthly rates of pay.

3.5. Placing reliance upon Karan Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation
& Anr. , Civil Appeal No. 12743 of 2017; Delhi Transport Corporation v.
Balwan Singh & Ors. , Civil Appeal No. 7159 of 2014; and Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Jai Kumar Jain , W.P. (C) No.
5424/2017, whose review petition, Review Petition No. 175/2020, was
dismissed on 02.12.2020, learned counsel for the respondents contended that
the period spent as Retainer Crew Conductor on daily wages, without
entitlement to regular salary, cannot be counted towards qualifying service
for pensionary benefits, and that the applicant’s pension has, therefore, been
correctly computed w.e.f. 02.06.1998, when he was brought on monthly
rates of pay. Accordingly, it was submitted that the applicant is not entitled
to the claimed continuity of service, arrears of pay, notional increments or
consequential pensionary benefits, and the OA deserves dismissal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings
available on record.

5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. The controversy in the present OA essentially revolves around whether
the applicant is entitled to have his service from 13.04.1976 onwards
counted towards qualifying service for pension, notwithstanding the
intervening terminations, his fresh appointment as Retainer Crew Conductor
w.e.f. 14.01.1986 and his subsequent placement on monthly rates of pay
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:04+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

6
Item No. 64 O.A. No. 2712/2021
Court No. IV

w.e.f. 02.06.1998. The applicant has sought to substantiate his claim by
relying upon the orders passed in the earlier proceedings, whereas the
respondents maintain their stand that continuity of service cannot, by itself,
entitle the applicant to count the entire period spent as Retainer Crew
Conductor towards qualifying service under the applicable pension scheme.
The issue, therefore, requires examination not merely from the standpoint of
continuity of service, but also with reference to the nature of the
appointment and the applicable conditions governing the computation of
pension.
5.2. At the outset, it is evident from the record that the applicant's service
history has been the subject matter of several rounds of litigation. The
applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3052/2011,
which was disposed of on 27.09.2012. The matter was thereafter considered
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 945/2015, disposed of
on 17.03.2015, and the challenge was subsequently carried to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 2317/2016, which was dismissed on
22.01.2016. The respondent has further submitted that the subsequent
review and curative petitions were also dismissed. These proceedings
assume significance because the applicant cannot seek, through the present
OA, a fresh adjudication of issues that have already attained finality. At the
same time, the precise scope of the earlier decisions must be borne in mind:
the dismissal of the subsequent challenge cannot be construed beyond the
issues actually decided in those proceedings. Thus, insofar as the applicant
seeks to reopen the validity of the fresh appointment order dated 13.01.1986
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:04+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

7
Item No. 64 O.A. No. 2712/2021
Court No. IV

and claim continuity of service on grounds already adjudicated, the principle
of finality of litigation operates against him.
5.3. As regards the objection of limitation, it is noted that the applicant has
challenged the memorandum dated 13.01.1986, whereby he was appointed
afresh as Retainer Crew Conductor w.e.f. 14.01.1986, by instituting the
present OA on 10.11.2021. However, the delay in filing the OA already
stands condoned by this Tribunal vide order dated 13.02.2023 passed in
M.A. No. 3340/2021, and the matter has thereafter proceeded on merits. In
view thereof, the respondent's objection based solely on the delay in
institution of the OA cannot be treated as an independent ground for
dismissal at this stage. Nevertheless, condonation of delay does not, by
itself, confer any substantive entitlement upon the applicant or dispense with
the requirement of establishing his claim in accordance with law. The
applicant must still demonstrate that he is entitled to the reliefs sought,
particularly in view of the earlier rounds of litigation and the applicable
principles governing continuity of service and qualifying service for
pension.
5.4. On the substantive question of qualifying service, it is necessary to
distinguish between continuity of service for the purpose of reinstatement
and the treatment of a particular period as qualifying service under the
applicable pension scheme. The applicant relies upon the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 20.12.1996, whereby reinstatement with
continuity of service was directed without back wages, and the subsequent
order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 17.03.2015 concerning the
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:04+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

8
Item No. 64 O.A. No. 2712/2021
Court No. IV

treatment of the relevant period as duty. However, the benefit of continuity
of service must be understood in the context of the directions actually issued
and cannot, without further examination of the applicable pension rules, be
treated as automatically converting every period of engagement into
qualifying service for pension. The record indicates that the applicant was
appointed afresh as Retainer Crew Conductor w.e.f. 14.01.1986 and was
brought on monthly rates of pay only w.e.f. 02.06.1998. The respondent has
accordingly treated the latter date as the commencement of qualifying
service for pension.
5.5. The Respondent has, in support of their stand, relied upon Karan Singh
v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra), Delhi Transport
Corporation v. Balwan Singh & Ors., (supra); and Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. v. Jai Kumar Jain , (supra), whose review petition,
Review Petition No. 175/2020, was dismissed on 02.12.2020. These judicial
pronouncements have been cited to contend that the period spent as Retainer
Crew Conductor on daily wages, without regular salary, is not liable to be
included in qualifying service for pension. The applicant's claim, therefore,
cannot be accepted merely on the basis of the length of his association with
the respondent corporation or the fact that reinstatement with continuity of
service was directed in the earlier proceedings. The entitlement to
pensionary benefits must be determined in accordance with the applicable
pension scheme and the binding judicial directions governing the
Applicant's individual case. In the absence of a demonstrated entitlement to
count the entire retainer crew period as qualifying service, no direction for
revision of pension on that basis can be issued.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:04+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

9
Item No. 64 O.A. No. 2712/2021
Court No. IV

6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the applicant has failed to
establish a sustainable basis for reopening the concluded challenge to the
memorandum dated 13.01.1986 or for securing the inclusion of the entire
period spent as Retainer Crew Conductor in his qualifying service for
pension. We accordingly find no ground to interfere with the respondent’s
decision to compute the applicant’s qualifying service w.e.f. 02.06.1998.
6.2. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)

/as/
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:04+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI