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.
Santosh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) 2887 of 2020, CM Appl. 4925 of 2021
Decided On : 08-02-2021




The court affirmed the right to equality under Article 14, directing that a petitioner similarly situated to prior cases be granted pro rata pension, ensuring fair administrative practice in verification.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to equality - Pro rata pension - Petitioner claimed relief akin to previous judgments and asserted his entitlement to similar benefits. Respondents agreed to consider eligibility based on the petitioner being similarly placed. (Paras 2-5)

(B) Administrative proceedings - Verification and communication - The court directed that verification must take place and any denial of entitlement must be communicated with reasons. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought pro rata pension, asserting he was in a similar position to prior petitioners. Required NOCs were provided, and the court noted respondents would verify and respond accordingly.

Findings of Court:
The respondents are obliged to grant pro rata pension if found similarly situated within twelve weeks, or to communicate reasons for denial, if applicable. Interest at 7% shall apply on delayed payments.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to pro rata pension and the process for verification of his claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the principle of equality under Article 14 by directing the consideration of the petitioner’s entitlement in comparison to prior judgments, thereby ensuring administrative transparency in decision-making.

Result: Petition disposed of in favor of the petitioner, directing timely payment and verification of eligibility.

Table of Content
1. claim for pro rata pension (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. response from respondents on verification (Para 4)
3. order for payment and verification process (Para 5 , 6)
4. order notification and compliance (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 10035/2021 (Exemption) in W.P. (C) 2887/2020

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, applications stand disposed of.

CM APPL. 4925/2021 (Early hearing) in W.P. (C) 2887/2020

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and the petition is taken up for hearing today.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) 2887/2020

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

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner state that the petitioner in this petition claims to be similarly placed to the petitioner in Brijlal Kumar v. Union of India and others connected petitions 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1477 and the petitioner 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.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on enquiry, state that the requisite No Objection Certificates (NOCs) had been given.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly state 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.

5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of directing the respondents/Indian Air Force that within twelve weeks herefrom, if they find the petitioner 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner, not so found entitled, the reasons in writing thereof and in which event, the petitioner shall be entitled to take further remedies there against. Needless to state that if any documents are asked for by the respondents, the same shall be furnished by the petitioner within a week.

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.

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