Employer cannot deny pensionary benefits due to its own failure to maintain service records.

The applicant’s husband, Shri Ashok Kumar, a Driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), died in a road accident on August 20, 1992.

Following his death, the applicant submitted pension forms and, per the respondents' demand in 1993, deposited ₹17,924.06 to cover excess gratuity and the employer's share of EPF to facilitate the pension.

Despite this, the DTC later claimed the husband's records were untraceable and that his employer share of PF was "zero" as of 2003, thus denying the family pension.

Internal office notings obtained via RTI in 2022 revealed that the husband’s PF status was marked as "S" (indicating Pension Scheme membership) and that the delay was due to the respondents’ mishandling of records.

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking the release of all retiral benefits with 18% interest.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to family pension and retiral benefits despite the respondents’ claim of "zero" employer PF contribution and missing records.

2. Whether the claim is barred by delay and laches given the death occurred in 1992.

The Tribunal applied the DTC Pension Scheme (Office Order dated 27.11.1992), which includes a "deeming provision" stating that employees who died before exercising an option are deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme.

The court relied on the established principle that pension is not a bounty but a statutory and constitutional right that crystallizes upon retirement/death.

The court applied the doctrine that an employee cannot be penalized for the employer's failure to maintain statutory service records.

The principle that social security rules must receive a liberal interpretation in favor of employees.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ 1993 demand for the applicant to deposit the employer's share of EPF constituted an admission of the deceased's coverage under the pension framework.

The respondents' current stance—that the husband's account was "zero"—contradicted their own internal notings which marked him as "S" (Pension Scheme) and admitted to record-keeping failures.

The Tribunal reasoned that since the scheme was retrospective (w.e.f. 03.08.1981) and contained a deeming clause for deceased employees, the husband was legally covered.

Regarding delay, the Tribunal held that because the applicant continuously pursued the matter and the respondents engaged in correspondence, the technicality of delay could not override the substantive right to a pension, which is a continuous cause of action.

It directed the respondents to verify/reconstruct the records and release all benefits, including family pension arrears, gratuity, and EPF accumulations, within three months.

Due to the "inordinate and unexplained delay" by the DTC, the Tribunal ordered the payment of interest at the applicable GPF rate from the date the amounts became due until actual payment.

No order was made as to costs.