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.
Prafull Chand, EX SGT 768805-R - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 4182 of 2021
Decided On : 07-04-2021




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.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Pro Rata Pension - Relief sought by petitioner analogous to judgments in Brijlal Kumar v. Union of India and Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India - Proper application of criteria for granting pro rata pension considered. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope of judicial review of administrative decisions concerning pension rights emphasized. (Para 4)

(C) Interest - Non-payment of arrears incurs interest @ 7% per annum from expiry of twelve weeks until payment. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed entitlements to pro rata pension based on precedents of similar judicial decisions and confirmed NOCs.

Findings of Court:
Court ordered verification of the petitioner’s eligibility for pro rata pension and enforced payment of arrears with interest if not met within specified time.

Issues: The primary issues addressed were the criteria for eligibility for pro rata pension and the enforcement of timely payment of such entitlements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the petitioner should receive the same pension relief as granted in prior judgments if found similarly placed, and outlined procedures for communication of non-eligibility.

Result: Petition disposed of in favor of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 12728/2021 (Exemption) in W.P. (C) 4182/2021

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) 4182/2021

1. 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.

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

3. 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.

4. 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 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 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.

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.

6. 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.90/2018 filed by the petitioner before the Armed Forces Tribunal. The statement made by the learned counsel for petitioner is accepted by this Court and petitioner is held bound by the same.

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