Brijlal Kumar vs Union of India - 2020 Supreme(Del) 1476

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Del) 1476

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, ASHA MENON
Brijlal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Ankur Chhibber, Advocate, Himanshu Shekhar Tiwari, Advocate, Anshuman Mehrotra, Advocate, Harsh Dhankar, Advocate, Nikunj Arora, Advocate, Pallavi Awasthi, Advocate, Manoj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Aparajita Singh, Advocate, Manoj Gupta, Advocate, Banvendra Singh Gandhar, Advocate, Krishna Kumar Prasad, Advocate, Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate, Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate, Anil Soni, Advocate, Devesh Dubey, Advocate, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Advocate, Jaswinder Singh, Advocate, Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocate, Piyush Beriwal, Advocate, Neeraj, Advocate, Ankit Raj, Advocate, Sahaj Garg, Advocate, Vandana Dewan, Advocate, Damini Garg, Advocate, Avnish Singh, Advocate, Aakanksha Kaul, Advocate, Manek Singh, Advocate, Praveen Kumar Jain, Advocate, Abhishek Khanna, Advocate, Sajal Manchanda, Advocate, Nikhil Goel, Advocate, Dushyant Sarna, Advocate, Amrita Prakash, Advocate, Nidhi Raman, Advocate, Ruchir Mishra, Advocate, Mukesh K Tiwari, Advocate, Ramneek Mishra, Advocate, Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Advocate, Amit Gupta, Advocate, Manik Dogra, Advocate, Dhruv Pande, Advocate, Vinod Diwakar, Advocate, Amit Kumar, Advocate, Manish Mohan, Advocate, Manisha Saroha, Advocate, Arti Bansal, Advocate, Aakash Meena, Advocate, Satya Ranjan Swain, Advocate, Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Advocate, Vinay Mathew, Advocate, Anil Dabas, Advocate, Vijay Joshi, Advocate, Himanshu Pathak, Advocate, Raj Kumar Yadav, Advocate, Rupali Kapoor, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - The petitioner/s, in each of these 40 petitions, (a) impugn/s the letter/circular No. 8(3)/86/A/D(Pension/Services) dated 19th February, 1987 issued by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to the extent that it grants the benefit of pro rata pension only to the Commissioned Officers of the Defence Services and not to the Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs)/Persons Below Officer Rank (PsBOR) of the Defence Services, as discriminatory; and, (b) claim/s pro rata pension.

2. Needless to state, the petitioner/s in each of the petitions are NCOs/PsBOR who joined the respondents Indian Air Force (IAF) as Airmen/Corporal.

3. It is apposite to preface this judgment with the background in which the controversy being adjudicated by this judgment has arisen.

4. All claims of pension, gratuity or allowance of personnel of IAF are regulated by the PENSION REGULATIONS for the Air Force, 1961 as in force at the time of an individual''s retirement, release, resignation, discharge, death, etc., as the case may be. The same, (i) in Chapter I titled ''General'', (a) vide Regulation 2A (3) ''defines'' ''Airman'' "as a person subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, other than an off

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(Del) 1476

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, ASHA MENONBrijlal Kumar – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (20)

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, ASHA MENON
Brijlal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent