Yashwant Kumar Pathak vs Union of India

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Yashwant Kumar Pathak - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) 2358 of 2020, W.P. (C) 2457 of 2020 and W.P. (C) 2871 of 2020
Decided On : 22-01-2021

Important Points

The court determines the eligibility for pro rata pensions based on prior judgments and mandates verification of petitioners' claims, ensuring equitable treatment.

Subject

Administrative Law - Pension Rights

Headnote

(A) Administrative Law - Pension - The petitioners claim similar relief as granted to other petitioners in earlier judgments regarding pro rata pension. The respondents are directed to verify their eligibility based on these precedents and provide relief accordingly. (Paras 2, 5)

(B) Judicial Discretion - Court allows early hearing of petitions upon parties' consent. (Para 1)

(C) Interest - Arrears of pro rata pension to incur interest at 7% per annum if not paid within stipulated time. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, claiming to be similarly situated to previous litigants, seek pro rata pension. They have provided the required No Objection Certificates.

Findings of Court:
The Court orders verification of petitioners' claims, directing relief within a specified time.

Issues: The primary issue is whether the petitioners are similarly situated to prior petitioners deserving the same pro rata pension relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court underscores the need for verification of claims in light of previous judgments, ensuring fair application of pension rights.

Result: Petitions disposed of with directives to grant relief.

Table of Content
1. petitioners claim pro rata pension similar to prior cases. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondents agree to dispose of petitions subject to verification. (Para 4)
3. judgment grants pro rata pension with conditions; interest on delay. (Para 5 , 6)
4. order to be uploaded and communicated. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

C.M.No.2417/2021 in W.P.(C) No.2358/2020

C.M.No.2426/2021 in W.P.(C) No.2457/2020

C.M.No.2422/2021 in W.P.(C) No.2871/2020

Keeping in view the averments in the applications, early hearing is allowed and with consent of parties, the matters are taken up for hearing today.

Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.2358/2020

W.P.(C) No.2457/2020

W.P.(C) No.2871/2020

1. The petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners in these petitions claim to be similarly placed to the petitioners in Brijlal Kumar v. Union of India and others connected petitions 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1477 and the petitioners in Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 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.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions, on enquiry, states that the requisite No Objection Certificates (NOC) had been given.

4. 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 petitions be disposed of.

5. Accordingly, the petitions are 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 payment of arrears of pro rata pension from the date of discharge till the date of payment and in future to continue to pay pro rata pension to the petitioners. However, if on verification it is found that the petitioners, for any reason, are not entitled to pro rata pension for reasons other than those stated in the judgments in Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and Brijlal Kumar (supra) and other connected petitions supra being in personam, the respondents, within the said twelve weeks, shall communicate to the petitioners, not so found entitled, the reasons in writing thereof and in which event, the petitioners shall be entitled to take further remedies there against.

6. If the arrears of pro rata pension are not paid within twelve weeks, the same shall also incur interest thereon @ 7% per annum from the expiry of twelve weeks till the date of payment.

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