JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. The Petitioners, who are `premature retirees' from the Indian Army and Air Force, held Permanent Commissions prior to their early retirement. They allege that their retiring pension and other related benefits were unjustifiably denied to them due to their inability to complete the stipulated twenty years of service, which is a prerequisite for receiving a full pro-rata service pension.

2. Owing to circumstances beyond their control, the Petitioners were purportedly compelled to take early retirement after successfully completing ten years of service, but before reaching the twenty-year mark. Despite this early exit being sanctioned by the competent authority, Petitioners express deep dissatisfaction over being deprived of a pro-rata service pension. The basis for their complaint rests on the contention that Respondent-authorities, in their decision, have erroneously presumed that twenty years of commissioned service is an essential pre-condition for receiving the pension, in ignorance of Notification No. 8(3)/86/D(Pension/Services) dated 19th February, 1987 issued by the Ministry of Defence, which permits grant of pro-rata pension to the commissioned officers with ten years of services, who are later appointed in Central Public Enterprises. It was argued that there is no rational basis to preclude Petitioners from pensionary benefits. Petitioners contended that Respondents have conveniently overlooked the periods of pre-commissioning military training and reserve service, which, when accounted for, would cumulatively exceed the qualifying service period of twenty years for grant of service pension. These phases were integral and contributory to their total service tenure and should earn them eligibility for the pension.

3. Based on the afore-noted irregularities in computation of their service periods and application of rules for provision of benefits to them, the Petitioners seek service pension, even on a pro-rata basis, accruing to them on account of their premature retirement.

4. The Petitioners have been pursuing legal remedies for redressal of their grievance. Previously, they filed a writ petition [W.P.(C) 11893/2021], however, given the nature of reliefs sought in the said petition, the same was dismissed vide order dated 22nd October, 2021, with liberty to agitate the issue further by filing a public interest litigation ["PIL"], as under:

"The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the present writ petition is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. However, the said petition has not been filed in the format prescribed for a Public Interest Litigation under the Delhi High Court Rules.

Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a Public Interest Litigation on the same cause of action. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail."

5. Subsequently, on an application [being CM. APPL. 23799/2022], Petitioners elucidated their personal interest in the matter and urged the Court to consider their case within the ambit of the aforesaid writ petition, rather than as a PIL. The Court however, ordered as under:

"CM APPL. 23799/2022 (u/S. 151 CPC)

1. Learned counsel for applicants/petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present application with liberty to take steps pursuant to order dated 22.10.2021 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

2. Permission granted to take appropriate steps, as prayed for.

3. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed as withdrawn."

6. In light of the events narrated above, Petitioners filed the instant petition in nature of a PIL, principally seeking a writ of certiorari to annul the existing policy, non-statutory pension regulations, and other associated instructions, includin