Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus MOOL CHAND

Decided
2 December 2008
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, AFTAB ALAM (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1073 · 2008 INSC 1379
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 06th November, 2001. It appears that there was a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'VRS') in the Delhi Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', in 1993 which contained a provision for pension. The respondent herein did not apply under that VRS Scheme:

pp. 1073–1074, margin G

2

Subsequently, the Corporation framed a new Scheme dated 13.12.1995 in which it was specifically stated that those employees who opt for VRS under the new Scheme will not get pension. Respondent, admittedly, applied under this scheme.

p. 1074, margin A

3

Since, there was a specific provision in the VRS Scheme dated 13.12.1995, we fail to see how the High Court has held that the respondent will get pension in addition-to VRS benefits.

p. 1074, margin A

4

In view of above, we find that the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous and it is hereby set aside.

p. 1074, margin C

5

The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No Order as to costs. Civil Appeal Nos.2301/2007 and 2302/2007

p. 1074, margin D

6

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeals has stated that in view of the earlier order of this Court dated 12th March, 2007. passed in Special Leave Petition(C)No.4135 of 2007, these appeals may be dismissed. We order accordingly. R.P. Appeals disposed of .

p. 1074, margin E