Delhi High Court
Ex Cpl G Mohan vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 December, 2020
$~VC-9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 4th December, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 9843/2020
EX CPL G MOHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ganesh Singh, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajay Digpaul, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
C.M. Appl. No.31408/2020 (Exemption from filing
original/certified copies, dim and small font annexure)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9843/2020
3. The petitioner, an ex-Corporal of the respondents Indian Air
Force (IAF), has filed this petition seeking mandamus, directing
the respondents IAF to consider the case of the petitioner and to
grant pro-rata pension to the petitioner from the date of his
discharge i.e. 10th December, 2006.
W.P.(C) No.9843/2020 Page 1 of 5
4. It is the case of the petitioner, that (i) the petitioner was
enrolled in the respondents IAF as an Engine Fitter, on 19th March,
1996; (ii) the petitioner was facing some extreme personal/family
circumstances and when apprised his seniors of the same, was
advised to avail of the prevailing Air Force Orders (AFOs)/policy
made for that purpose; (iii) accordingly the petitioner requested for
release from service, after 10 years and 8 months of service; (iv)
that there was a policy providing for discharge from service on
compassionate grounds; (v) that the application of the petitioner
was approved and the petitioner discharged/released from service
on 10th December, 2006, after completing 10 years and 8 months of
regular service and 2 years of reserve service, totaling 12 years and
8 months; (vi) that post release from the respondents IAF "the
petitioner had different personal circumstances to manage and find
some jobs in private sector as his age for the various government
job was expiring and he could not also compete with the candidates
who were already under flow of education/coaching/preparations
and the petitioner was required to apply in general category only
and not as ex-serviceman"; and, (vii) that the petitioner, on 2nd
July, 2018, represented for pro-rata pension but which
representation was rejected on 24th July, 2018.
5. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner,
whether not for the claim of pro-rata pension of the petitioner, the
jurisdiction would be of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), in
accordance with the dicta of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.(C) No.9843/2020 Page 2 of 5
Ashit Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India Ors. MANU/DE/3584/
2017.
6. The counsel for the petitioner states that this Court, in some
other judgments, has entertained writ petitions and granted the
relief of pro-rata pension.
7. The relief of pro-rata pension was granted by this Court to
Persons Below Officers Rank (PBORs)/ Non-Commissioned
Officers (NCOs) in the respondents IAF, for the first time in
Govind Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India
MANU/DE/0048/2019 (DB) [Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Civil)
No. 8813/2019 whereagainst was dismissed on 26th April, 2019]. In
Govind Kumar Srivastava supra, the writ petition was entertained
because entailed a challenge to the circular/policy dated 19 th
February, 1987 of the respondents IAF which, though granted the
benefit of pro-rata pension to Commissioned Officers, on fulfilling
some conditions, did not grant the same benefit on the same
conditions to the PBORs/NCOs; it was the contention of the
petitioner therein that thus the PBORs/NCOs were being
discriminated. Though in the said judgment also, the question of
transferring the matter to the AFT was considered but for the
reason that the AFT was refusing to entertain challenge to
policy/circulars, the petition was retained in this court.
8. The petitioner in the present petition has not impugned any
policy or circular of the respondents IAF and has merely made a
W.P.(C) No.9843/2020 Page 3 of 5
claim for pro-rata pension and the case of the petitioner is akin to
Ashit Kumar Mishra supra and not to Govind Kumar Srivastava
supra.
9. The counsel for the petitioner has then referred us to Rule
15(2)(f) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 but which merely prescribes
the authorities competent to issue an order of discharge of a
personnel of the Air Force "at own request". The same has no
relevance here.
10. The counsel for the petitioner has next referred us to AFO 16
of 2008 titled "Discharge from Service on Compassionate and
other Grounds: Airmen and NCs(E)". The same also provides the
various grounds on which discharge can be granted, one of which
is "compassionate ground" on which the petitioner sought and was
granted discharge, and another is "selection to civil post", as was
the case in Govind Kumar Srivastava supra and in Brijlal Kumar
Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1477, decided by us
recently. The petitioner is thus not covered by the dicta in Govind
Kumar Srivastava supra and Brijlal Kumar supra. We may
mention that vide policy/circular dated 19th February, 1987,
Commissioned Officers, on discharge after rendering 10 years of
minimum service, as distinct from minimum 20 years of service for
being eligible for pension prescribed under Regulation 25 of the
Air Force Pension Regulations, 1961, were conferred the benefit of
pro-rata pension if had been discharged to join the service of a
State/Central Government, after obtaining No-objection Certificate
W.P.(C) No.9843/2020 Page 4 of 5
(NOC) from the Indian Air Force. Here, the petitioner, as per his
own admission, did not seek discharge for joining any other service
but sought discharge on compassionate grounds and thus cannot
seek the benefit of the judgments.
11. No other argument has been urged.
12. There is no merit in the petition.
13. Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J. DECEMBER 04, 2020 mw W.P.(C) No.9843/2020 Page 5 of 5