IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
CPL Roni Sen - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) 2695 of 2021
Decided On : 26-02-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. video conferencing for hearings. (Para 1) |
| 2. claim for similar reliefs as previous cases. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. respondents agree to dispose of the petition. (Para 4) |
| 4. direction to grant pro rata pension if eligible. (Para 5) |
| 5. interest on arrears and order upload. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral):
CM APPL. 7982/2021 (Exemption) in W.P. (C) 2695/2021
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.
W.P. (C) 2695/2021
1. These petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states 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 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, states that the requisite No Objection Certificates (NOCs) 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 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, 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. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
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.
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 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 ....
Equal treatment under Article 14 mandates that similarly situated individuals must be granted the same entitlements, with a requirement for justification on any discrepancies.
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.
A petitioner similarly placed to those in precedent cases may seek pro rata pension, with the court enforcing timely payment and stating penalties for delays.
Equitable treatment mandates that similarly placed individuals receive the same pension benefits, with rights for verification and appeal preserved.
Court directed verification for pro rata pension based on prior judgments, requiring timely compliance and communication of reasons if denied the relief.
The court mandated equal treatment for similarly situated petitioners in pension matters, affirming the provision of arrears based on prior judgments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.