IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Pritam Singh, EX CPL 709111-L - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8703 of 2021 & C.M. No. 27089 of 2021
Decided On : 23-08-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for pro rata pension based on prior judgments. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. consent to verify and appeal against prior judgments. (Para 4) |
| 3. order for verification and potential response upon denial. (Para 5) |
| 4. interest on unpaid arrears and directive for order dissemination. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner in the present wit 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 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 along with pending application is disposed of directing the respondent 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 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.
Verification of pension entitlement must align with precedents, ensuring petitioner receives due process and fair assessment based on comparability to similar cases.
The court established that the entitlement to pro rata pension depends on verification of eligibility according to past judicial rulings.
The court established that procedural verification is necessary for pension claims, ensuring fairness and timely payments to eligible individuals.
Entitlement to pro rata pension established, conditional on verification of similarity to other petitioners' cases.
The court mandates that the petitioner must receive pro rata pension if found similarly situated to previous petitioners, along with conditions for communication of reasons if denied.
The court mandated verification of entitlement for pro rata pension based on established precedents, ensuring timely payment with interest if delayed.
Entitlement to pro rata pension hinges on verification of petitioner's status against established criteria, preserving rights to appeal and ensuring timely payment with interest.
Entitlement to pro rata pension hinges on similar circumstances established in prior rulings, requiring timely verification and communication from the governing body.
The petitioner is entitled to pro rata pension if found similarly placed as previous petitioners, with interest on delayed dues.
The court confirmed the right to verify eligibility for pro rata pension, mandating payments and establishing procedures for denied claims.
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.