Summary: The family members of Ashok Kumar Dabas, a former bus conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation, have been granted gratuity and payment for unused leave by the Supreme Court, even though they were not given a pension because of rules about quitting.
In 1985, Ashok Kumar Dabas started working as a conductor for the Delhi Transport Corporation. He quit on August 7, 2014, and his resignation was accepted on September 19, 2014. Later, he tried to take back his resignation, but the request was denied. He asked for pension, gratuity, and payment for unused leave, but only the retirement savings fund was initially granted.
Dabas's request for pension benefits was turned down by the Central Administrative Tribunal in 2018. A review request was also denied. The Delhi High Court agreed with these decisions on December 20, 2022, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Dabas's lawyer, Narender Kumar Verma, argued that Dabas's quitting should be seen as voluntary retirement, allowing him pension benefits, citing his long service of nearly 30 years. However, the court noted that under Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, quitting means giving up past service, which disallows pension claims.
“Resignation from a service or a post... entails forfeiture of past service.” - Rule 26 of the 1972 Rules
The court recognized that under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Dabas was entitled to gratuity since he worked more than five years. The Delhi Transport Corporation was not exempt from this Act, and thus, gratuity had to be paid. The court also confirmed the right to payment for unused leave.
On December 9, 2025, Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan decided that Dabas's family members are entitled to gratuity and payment for unused leave, but not to pension. The corporation was directed to pay these amounts with 6% interest from the date of resignation.
“The amount due to the deceased employee be paid within a period of six weeks along with interest @6 % p.a. from the date of his resignation till payment.” - Supreme Court Order
