Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Lt. Cdr. Vikrant Malhan (retd.) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2198 of 2023 & CM APPL.8370 of 2023
Decided On : 21-02-2023
Mandamus - Pension Dispute - The court dismissed the petition seeking mandamus for pro rata pension, directing the modification of a policy, and other relief, stating that the same relief was sought in a previous petition and that the jurisdiction for the grievance lies with the Armed Forces Tribunal. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought mandamus for pro rata pension and modification of a policy, which was previously dismissed as withdrawn.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the present petition was not maintainable and that the jurisdiction for the grievance lies with the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Issues: Maintainability of the present petition and jurisdiction over the grievance raised by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the present petition seeking the same relief as a previous petition was not maintainable and that the jurisdiction for the grievance lies with the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Final Decision: The present petition and pending application were disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking following relief(s):
"(i) By issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondent to grant pro rata pension in favour of the petitioner from the date of his discharge with all consequential benefits along with an interest @14%.
(ii) To direct the respondents to modify/amend the Clause No.1 as embodied in the Policy/Notification No. 8(3)86/A/D (Pension/Services) by Government of India, Ministry of Defence dated 19.02.1987 and circular No.A/49738/AG/PS4(c)/689/A/D(Pens/Sers) dated 21.04.1988 for applying it uniformly to all the Armed Forces Personnel including Short Service Commissioned Officers and PBORs as the same in present form is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
(iii) Pass any other and further order (s) and direction (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. For the same relief(s) as sought vide the present petition, petitioner earlier also preferred a writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) 7885/2022, which was dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Accordingly, with the same prayer, the present petition is not maintainable.
4. Moreover, jurisdiction qua the grievance of petitioner raised in the present petition lies with learned Armed Forces Tribunal under Section 3 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
5. In view of above, the present petition and pending application are disposed of.
6. However, in the interest of justice, liberty is granted to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.
The court emphasized the principle of maintaining the jurisdictional integrity and appropriate forum for addressing the grievance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the extension of pension scheme benefits in accordance with relevant rules and previous....
Court affirmed entitlement to pro-rata pension for all central government employees, rejecting discrimination against non-commissioned officers.
The court upheld that a minimum of 15 years of qualifying service is required for pension eligibility, rejecting claims for pro-rata pension based on incomplete service.
An airman discharged from service is entitled to pro-rata pension, as established by precedent, regardless of the absence of specific provisions in pension regulations.
The court upheld that a minimum of 15 years of qualifying service is required for pension eligibility, and pro-rata pension is not applicable for those with less than 10 years of service.
Subordinate legislation can be challenged in terms of its constitutionality, but initial recourse must be to the appropriate tribunal, not High Court.
A writ petition is not maintainable when a specialized tribunal is available to adjudicate service-related disputes, unless the petitioner demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying the bypa....
The court affirmed that an individual who completes over 10 years of service is entitled to pro-rata pension upon voluntary retirement, consistent with established judicial precedents.
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
