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.
K. Sivakumar, Ex SGT 747582-R - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) 1925 of 2021 & CM Appl. 5608 of 2021
Decided On : 23-02-2021




Entitlement to pro rata pension granted subject to verification against precedential cases; failure to comply incurs interest.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Legal principles regarding entitlement to pension - Petitioner claims pro rata pension, seeking relief similar to that granted in precedential cases. Court directs respondents to verify petitioner's eligibility and grant relief accordingly. (Paras 2, 5, 6)

(B) Administrative Procedure - Court emphasizes the necessity of prompt payment of arrears with specified interest if not paid within stipulated time. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, sought pro rata pension while indicating he is similarly situated to other petitioners in previous judgments. The respondents recognized the necessity of verifying the petitioner's status.

Findings of Court:
The court ordered that if the petitioner is found eligible, he is entitled to pro rata pension from discharge date; further, should verification reveal ineligibility, reasons must be communicated in writing.

Issues: Whether the petitioner qualifies for pro rata pension based on precedents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that similarity to earlier cases warrants verification for pension eligibility, highlighting that failure to comply with payment mandates attracts interest.

Result: Petition disposed with directions for relief.

Table of Content
1. hearing conducted via video conferencing. (Para 1)
2. claim for pro rata pension based on prior cases. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's directive on verification and pension payment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. withdrawal of application and order dissemination. (Para 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral):

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

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner in the petition 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.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on enquiry, stated 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 and application 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 petitioner, for any reason, is 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. Learned counsel for petitioner assures and undertakes to this Court that in the event the present order is complied with, she shall withdraw the O.A.No.1675/2016 filed by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The statement made by the learned counsel for petitioner is accepted by this Court and petitioner is held bound by the same.

8. 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