Back
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Piyush Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners in this petition claim to be similarly placed to the petitioners in Brijlal Kumar v. Union of India and others,2020 SCCOnLineDel 1477 and the petitioners in Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India,2019 SCCOnLineDel 6425 (DB) [against which Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8813/2019 has been dismissed on 26th April, 2019] and seek the same relief as claimed therein i.e. of pro rata pension.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on enquiry, states that the requisite No Objection Certificated (NOC) had been given.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that subject to the right to verification and the right of appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment in Brijlal Kumar (supra) being saved, the petition be disposed of.
4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of directing the respondents Indian Air Force that within twelve weeks herefrom, if they find the petitioners to be similarly placed as the petitioners in Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and Brijlal Kumar (supra) and other connected petitions supra, to grant them the same relief as granted in those petitions i.e. by paymen
The court's decision was influenced by the principle of granting pro rata pension to similarly placed petitioners and providing the right to appeal if not entitled.
The court's decision was influenced by the similarity of the petitioners to those in previous cases and the right of appeal to the Supreme Court, highlighting the importance of verification and entit....
The court's decision was based on the principle of granting relief of pro rata pension to the petitioner, similar to relief granted in previous cases, subject to verification of entitlement.
The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's claim to be similarly placed to other petitioners and sought the same relief of pro rata pension, along with the agreement of the respondents t....
The court upheld the entitlement to pro rata pension for the petitioner, subject to verification and the right of appeal to the Supreme Court, and outlined the process for denial and further remedies....
The court mandates the verification of petitioners' eligibility for pro rata pension linked to prior cases, ensuring timely communication of denials and the obligation to pay interest on delays.
Petitioners similarly situated to previous claimants are entitled to pro rata pension, with interest on delayed payments, and must be informed in writing if found otherwise.
Entitlement to pro rata pension is affirmed if eligibility is established, with a directive for timely payment and interest for delays.
The court ruled that similar cases should receive equivalent relief in pension matters, ensuring equitable treatment in the absence of disqualifying factors.
The court underscored that similar cases dictate entitlement to pro rata pension, necessitating verification by the relevant authority within a specified timeframe.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
