SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Karan Singh Rathore - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1432 of 2020, W.P.(C) 2360 of 2020, W.P.(C) 2673 of 2020 and W.P.(C) 932 of 2021 & CM Appl. 2542 of 2021
Decided On : 25-01-2021




Court mandates compliance with precedents granting pro rata pensions, requiring verification of petitioners' eligibility and stipulating interest on delayed payments.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Pro rata pension - The petitioners sought pro rata pension similar to reliefs granted in prior judgments, including Brijlal Kumar v. Union of India and Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India - The court allowed the petitions, directing the respondents to verify eligibility for pension within twelve weeks and pay arrears if found eligible - Interest of 7% per annum was mandated on delayed payment of arrears. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Legal principles - Entitlement to pension is a right which needs verification based on prior judgments and norms applicable to similarly placed individuals.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed to be similarly placed to earlier petitioners in two key judgments and sought the same pension relief; requisite NOC was already provided.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to grant the same relief as previously established for similar petitioners, subject to verification.

Issues: The main issues addressed include the verification process for similar entitlement and rights to pension in relation to previous judgments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of the respondents to ensure eligibility confirmation of the petitioners based on precedents and stipulated a timeline for action.

Result: Petitions disposed of with directions for payment.

Table of Content
1. claim for pro rata pension based on similar cases. (Para 1 , 2)
2. right to verification and appeal noted. (Para 3)
3. order to grant pension if eligible. (Para 4)
4. interest on delayed pension payments. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

C.M.No.2586/2021 in W.P.(C) No.1432/2020

C.M.No.2579/2021 in W.P.(C) No.2360/2020

C.M.No.2587/2021 in W.P.(C) No.2673/2020

W.P.(C) No.932/2021 & C.M.No.2542/2021

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.1432/2020

W.P.(C) No.2360/2020

W.P.(C) No.2673/2020

W.P.(C) No.932/2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners in this 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 seeks 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 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 him 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 petitioner. 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.

5. 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top