SVRS optees with over ten years’ service are entitled to proportionate pension despite Rule 48-A.

The Petitioner joined the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (“DVB”) as an Engineer on 8 June 1987 and was subsequently transferred to BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. after DVB’s unbundling on 1 July 2002.

BSES issued the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2003 (“SVRS-2003”), under which regular employees were eligible to seek retirement upon completing ten years of service from joining DVB or attaining forty years of age.

The Petitioner, who had completed approximately sixteen years of qualifying service and was over forty years of age, applied under SVRS-2003 on 31 December 2003. His application was accepted and he was released from service with effect from the same date.

Although he received ex gratia, gratuity, leave encashment, service gratuity and other terminal benefits, his pension and commutation were recorded as nil.

His representations were rejected on the ground that he had not completed twenty years of qualifying service required under Rule 48-A of the CCS Pension Rules.

Whether an employee released under SVRS-2003 after completing more than ten but less than twenty years of qualifying service was entitled to proportionate pension under Clause 4.1.5 of the Scheme, notwithstanding the twenty-year requirement under Rule 48-A of the CCS Pension Rules?

Whether the expression “pension as per rules” in Clause 4.1.5 imported the twenty-year qualifying-service requirement under Rule 48-A and thereby excluded the Petitioner from pension?

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to five-year weightage under Rule 48-B of the CCS Pension Rules?

Which respondent or fund was liable to pay the pension and arrears, and whether the Petitioner’s receipt of other terminal benefits barred his pension claim?

The Court applied SVRS-2003, particularly Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 4.1.5 and 4.2, holding that the Scheme was a special, self-contained retirement package whose express eligibility threshold was ten years of DVB service or attainment of forty years, and whose pension provision could not be defeated by importing the twenty-year threshold under Rule 48-A.

Rule 3(q) of the CCS Pension Rules governed the computation of qualifying service; Rule 49(2)(b) provided the basis for proportionate pension where qualifying service was at least ten years but less than the full qualifying period.

Rule 48-B applied on its own terms only to specified categories of retirement, including retirement under Rule 48-A, and therefore did not independently grant the Petitioner five-year weightage.

The Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kirpal Singh, (2014) 5 SCC 189, for liberal construction of beneficial pension provisions.

The Court relied on Assistant General Manager v. Radhey Shyam Pandey, (2020) 6 SCC 438, for the binding effect of a special voluntary retirement scheme providing pension on a shorter service requirement.

The Court relied on Kewal Krishan v. Delhi Vidyut Board, W.P.(C) 14448/2006, affirmed in LPA No. 575/2023, for the proposition that SVRS-2003 prevailed over the general provisions of Rules 48-A and 49 to the extent of inconsistency.

The Court treated SVRS-2003 as a special scheme intended to induce eligible employees to make an early and irrevocable exit.

Since the Petitioner satisfied the Scheme’s stated eligibility conditions, applied within the prescribed period and was released pursuant to an accepted application, he acquired the pension benefit expressly included in Clause 4.1.5.

The words “as per rules” were held to regulate the computation and payment of pension, not to introduce an unstated twenty-year eligibility requirement under Rule 48-A.

Applying Rule 3(q) and Rule 49(2)(b), the Court held that the Petitioner’s service from 8 June 1987 to 31 December 2003 constituted qualifying service for proportionate pension.

The contemporaneous correspondence confirming possible Rule 48-B weightage was relevant to the employees’ understanding, but the confirmation was expressly conditional upon eligibility under Rule 48-B; therefore, the Court did not grant five-year weightage.

The Court further held that ex gratia, gratuity, leave encashment and other terminal benefits were separate benefits and did not constitute waiver or substitution of pension.

Any dispute regarding ultimate funding between BSES, the Trust and the relevant pension fund was held to be inter se and incapable of defeating the Petitioner’s entitlement.

His qualifying service was directed to be reckoned from 8 June 1987 to 31 December 2003, with pension computed on the recorded average emoluments of ₹10,525, subject to verification.

The SVRS Retirees’ Terminal Benefit Fund, 2004 was made liable for payment up to 30 April 2022, with reimbursement by the DVB Employee’s Terminal Benefit Fund Trust, 2002; pension thereafter was to be paid by the appropriate authority.

BSES was directed to furnish the Petitioner’s service particulars and assist in computation. Arrears and a due-and-drawn statement were to be prepared, and commutation was to be considered under the applicable Rules.

In lieu of interest, BSES was directed to pay costs of ₹50,000.

Computation and disbursement were directed to be completed within three months, without inter se funding disputes delaying or diminishing the Petitioner’s pensionary entitlement.