JUDGMENT

Manoj Jain, J.

1. It needs to be assessed whether the petitioners herein are entitled to "pro rata pension" from the date(s) of their respective discharge or not.

2. Petitioners were enrolled in Indian Air Force and held various ranks in the category of PBOR (Personnel Below Officer Rank) and NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer). After serving Indian Air Force between 10 to 15 years, they were discharged under Rule 15 (2)(g)(ii) of Indian Air Force Rules, 1969, being found `unsuitable for retention in the Air Force'.

3. Petitioners contend that they are entitled to receive `pro rata pension' on completion of 10 years of service. They rely on the judgments in Govind Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors.: 2019 SCC OnLine Delhi 6425 and Brij Lal Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.: 2020 SCC OnLine Delhi 1477.

4. According to the Petitioners, they had, themselves, never sought discharge from the Indian Air Force and despite spending their prime in the Indian Air Force in most adverse conditions, their services were abruptly terminated on the ground of unsuitability and such action of the Indian Air Force cannot deny them their right to get pension. They also pray that the pre-conditions as laid down in letter no. 8 (3)/86/A/D (Pension/Services) of Ministry of Defence dated 19th February, 1987 for grant of `pro rata pension' only in case of joining Central Public Enterprises (CPE) be struck down as discriminatory and violative.

5. Petitioners contend that there cannot be any arbitrary distinction between the officers who are able to secure a job in any other governmental organization and those who are not able to secure any such job and, therefore, they should also be treated at par.

6. Respondents have, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners are governed by "Pension Regulations for the Air Force 1961" and as per Regulation 121, the minimum qualifying service for earning `regular pension' is 15 years. Since the petitioners have put in service of less than 15 years, they are not eligible to seek any pension as per the aforesaid statutory provision. It is also claimed that, even otherwise, petitioners. contention for grant of `pro rata pension' is bereft of any substance as they were discharged, being unsuitable for retention in Air Force, and not because they were absorbed or to be absorbed by any Central Public Enterprise or Public Sector Undertaking.

7. Respondents contend that the reliance by the Petitioners on said precedents is misplaced as principle of `pro rata pension' stands attracted when any such official gets absorbed or employed in any other government organization, through proper channel, and under those circumstances only, the qualifying service is taken as 10 years for grant of `pro rata pension'.

8. There is no denying the fact that petitioners herein were discharged under Rule 15 (2)(g)(ii) of Indian Air Force Rules, 1969. Relevant details of their posting and discharge are as under:-

S. No.Name of PetitionerDate of EnrollmentDate of DischargeReason of DischargeTenure of Service in IAF1Mr. Rajeev Nambiar10.03.198602.02.1998His service no longer required - unsuitable for retention in IAF11 yrs. 134 days2Mr. Bino Agustine30.06.199222.08.2005His service no longer required - unsuitable for retention in IAF13 yrs. 22 days,3Mr. Rajesh Edathiparambil Vasudevan03.08.199311.12.2005His service no longer required - unsuitable for retention in IAF12 yrs. 125 days4Mr. Saji Simon30.06.199222.06.2005His service no longer required - unsuitable for retention in IAF12 yrs. 353 days5Mr. Jayachandran Devendren15.05.197620.08.1986His service no longer required - unsuitable for retention in IAF10 yrs. 98 days6Mr. Krishna Kumar Govindan21.08.198528.04.1997His service no longer required - unsuitable for retention in IAF11 yrs. 182 days7Mr. Ramavarma Ram Kumar19.02.197712.11.1989His service no longer required - unsuitable for retention in IAF12 yrs. 213 days8Mr. Kasturi Ravi15.04.198103.05.1993His service no longer required - unsuita

Click Here to Read the rest of this document