A Conductor's Decade-Long Fight for His Pension

Karan Singh joined Delhi Transport Corporation as a bus conductor in 1983. By 1993, he'd worked for a decade. When he took voluntary retirement, he expected a pension. Instead, the corporation said no. The reason: a technicality buried in 98 days of unpaid leave.

For 30 years, Singh fought through courts. In September 2017, the Supreme Court heard his appeal. But the judgment they delivered wasn't the victory he wanted—and it exposed something deeper about how India's courts handle workers' rights.

The Math That Doesn't Add Up

Here's where it gets complicated. Singh's service record shows he joined on 27 May 1983. The voluntary retirement scheme required 10 years of service to get a pension. By 30 April 1993 (when he retired), that should have been exactly 10 years.

But the DTC had a different calculation. They said that 98 days when Singh was on leave without pay should be subtracted. That left him with 9 years, 1 month, and 25 days. A few months short.

The real fight, though, was over something else: training. From 15 March 1983 to 26 May 1983, Singh attended a conductor training programme. Should those months count? Singh said yes. The corporation said no—because he wasn't paid during training.

When Bureaucrats Play With Numbers

The Central Administrative Tribunal (a special court for government employee disputes) initially sided with Singh in 2011. The judges noted something obvious: the corporation had already accepted that Singh had 10 years of service when they approved his voluntary retirement. They couldn't then turn around and say he didn't qualify.

But the DTC didn't accept defeat. They appealed to Delhi High Court, which reversed the tribunal's decision in 2013. The High Court's reasoning was narrow: if you subtract the 98 unpaid days and exclude the training period, Singh didn't have 10 years. Simple arithmetic.

Singh wasn't finished. He filed another application, this time emphasizing something the tribunal had noted: the leave records made no mention that unpaid leave meant you lost service credit. If the rule existed, why wasn't it written down?

The Supreme Court's Careful Dodge

When the Supreme Court took the case, judges A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan asked tough questions. They demanded to see the actual pension rules. They wanted copies of orders showing whether unpaid leave actually counted against service. And they asked for proof that other employees in similar situations had been denied pensions.

Singh's RTI (Right to Information) application provided crucial ammunition: a DTC letter from October 2013 showing that other workers—those who hadn't completed 10 years of qualifying service—had received pensions. The corporation's own actions contradicted its rigid stance toward Singh.

But here's what happened instead of a ruling: the Supreme Court punted. They said a larger bench was already hearing a similar case, Balwan Singh v. DTC, which would settle the exact question of whether unpaid leave counts. The court ordered Singh's appeal to be heard only after that bigger case was decided.

Translation: a pension case that started in 1993 would wait even longer.

What This Means for DTC Workers—and Others

Singh's case isn't just about one man. The judgment touches something millions of Indians depend on: how state employers calculate pension eligibility. If unpaid leave—even just 98 days across 10 years—can disqualify you, then pension rules become a trap.

The fact that the DTC had already paid pensions to similarly situated workers made the court hesitate. Selective enforcement is a form of unfairness that judges find hard to ignore, even when they don't want to rule.

The Transparency Problem

One detail stands out in this case: the Supreme Court had to demand basic documents. Pension rules. Leave records. Orders. Why didn't the DTC simply produce these documents at the beginning?

Singh's RTI request proved more useful than years of court filings. That alone suggests the corporation was hiding something—or at least, not being forthright about how it applies its own rules.

Where the Case Stands

Karan Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation & ANR (Civil Appeal No. 12743 of 2017, Supreme Court Reports [2017] 8 S.C.R. 675) did not deliver a final verdict. The court suspended judgment until the Balwan Singh case—on the exact same issue—could be decided by a larger bench. That case had been pending since 2014.

For Singh, this was a holding pattern. For DTC workers, it meant uncertainty about pensions would continue.

The Larger Question

Courts sometimes avoid difficult decisions by saying another case will settle them first. This approach has a cost: workers like Singh remain in limbo. Pensions unpaid. Legitimacy questioned. Rules unapplied.

After 30 years of litigation, Singh had not won. But he had not lost either. He remained suspended in a bureaucratic purgatory—the worst outcome for a worker who simply wanted what the law promised.