Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Raj Kumar PVK – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims pro rata pension. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents agree to verification rights. (Para 4) |
| 3. approval of pro rata pension contingent on status. (Para 5) |
| 4. interest on unpaid pension arrears stipulated. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral):
CM APPL. 6894/2021 (Exemption) in W.P. (C) 2358/2021
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 2358/2021
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that the petitioner in this petition claims 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 26thApril, 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
The court mandates that if the petitioner is similarly placed as in prior judgements, pro-rata pension must be granted, reinforcing the obligation for verification and timely communication regarding ....
The court affirmed the right to pro rata pension for similarly situated individuals, emphasizing the requirement of verification and timely payment of entitlements.
The court directed the payment of pro rata pension to the petitioner if found similarly situated as in prior decisions, establishing the principle of equality and fair treatment under law.
Court mandates uniform treatment in pension claims based on prior judgments, ensuring timely payment and interest on delays.
The court affirmed the right to pro rata pension for eligible petitioners, ensuring compliance with equal treatment principles and due verification standards from prior judgments.
The court establishes that pension claims must be assessed based on established precedents ensuring equity and mandated timelines for verification and payment.
The court upheld that petitioners similarly placed to prior judgments are entitled to pro rata pension benefits, mandating timely compliance by the respondents with specified conditions.
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 verifica....
Equitable treatment mandates that similarly placed individuals receive the same pension benefits, with rights for verification and appeal preserved.
Equal treatment under Article 14 mandates that similarly situated individuals must be granted the same entitlements, with a requirement for justification on any discrepancies.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
