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, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Manoj Kumar Poddar (Ex CPL 733670-H) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 12929 of 2021 & CM Appl. 40716 of 2021
Decided On : 17-11-2021




The court affirmed the right to equal treatment in pension claims, requiring verification of eligibility related to prior judgments while ensuring the petitioner can appeal if denied.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Claim for pro rata pension - The petitioner claims to be similarly placed as those in previous related cases and seeks similar relief of pro-rata pension. Respondents are directed to ascertain the petitioner's eligibility and grant arrears of pro-rata pension if applicable, with interest for delayed payments. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Administrative Law - Right to verification - The court acknowledged the necessity of verifying entitlement to pro rata pension, while emphasizing the right to appeal the decision in accordance with prior judgments. (Paras 3-4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks relief for pro-rata pension alongside similar petitioners from previous judgments, asserting that he has provided requisite No Objection Certificates.

Findings of Court:
The court orders that if the petitioner is found similarly placed, he is entitled to arrears of pro-rata pension and future payments, with interest if not paid timely.

Issues: The primary issue was the eligibility of the petitioner for pro-rata pension compared to other similar cases, and the procedural rights regarding verification and appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents must assess the petitioner’s eligibility based on previous judgments to ensure equal treatment under the law, permitting appeal rights to safeguard the petitioner's rights.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. claim for pro rata pension (Para 1)
2. noc submission (Para 2)
3. respondent's condition for petition disposal (Para 3)
4. court's directive on pension verification (Para 4)
5. interest on delayed payments (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

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 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1477 and the petitioner 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, states that the requisite No Objection Certificates (NOCs) had been given.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that subject to right to verification and 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, 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 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.

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