Delhi High Court
Subhash Chandra Tiwari vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 December, 2020
$~VC-18 to 21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 8th December, 2020
+ W.P. (C) 10007/2020
OM PRAKASH YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla,
CGSC with Mr. Sarvan Kumar
Shukla, Adv.
+ W.P. (C) 10008/2020
SUBHASH CHANDRA TIWARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with
Mr. Kritagya Kumar Kait, Adv.
+ W.P. (C) 10009/2020
SWAMI NATH PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.
Viren Kapur, Mr. Syed Husain
Adil Taqvi & Mr. Hussain Taqvi
G.P. for R-1 to R-5.
+ W.P. (C) 10010/2020
ASHIT KUMAR MISHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with
Mr. Ankit Tyagi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
CM APPLN. No.31795/2020 (Exemption from filing the fair
typed copies of dim annexures and the documents which have
less left and right side margin and documents which have small
font size) in W.P (C) 10007/2020
CM APPLN. No.31798/2020 (Exemption from filing the fair
typed copies of dim annexures and the documents which have
less left and right side margin and documents which have small
font size) in W.P (C) 10008/2020
CM APPLN. No.31801/2020 (Exemption from filing the fair
typed copies of dim annexures and the documents which have
less left and right side margin and documents which have small
font size) in W.P (C) 10009/2020
CM APPLN. No.31804/2020 (Exemption from filing the fair
typed copies of dim annexures and the documents which have
less left and right side margin and documents which have small
font size) in W.P (C) 10010/2020
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
W.P. (C) 10007/2020, W.P. (C) 10008/2020, W.P. (C)
10009/2020, W.P. (C) 10010/2020
3. These petitions impugn the order dated 29th September, 2020
of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in T.A. Nos.02/2017,
06/2017, 05/2017 and 03/2017 preferred by the petitioners,
originally in this court and decided by judgment dated 26 th May,
2017 in W.P.(C) 7219/2016 titled Ashit Kumar Mishra Vs. Union
of India and other connected petitions MANU/DE/3584/2017,
seeking the relief of pro rata pension.
4. The counsel for the respondents in W.P. (C) 10010/2020
appearing on advance notice states that though this court in Brijlal
Kumar Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1477 and other
connected petitions, granted the relief of pro rata pension but these
petitions are against the order of the AFT. It is argued that the
counsel for the petitioners herein, on 15th June, 2020, withdrew
W.P. (C) 3517/2020 to approach the Supreme Court, on this court
putting a query with respect to the jurisdiction of this court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India entertaining a challenge to
the order of the AFT, in the face of the alternative remedy available
under Sections 30 and 31 of the AFT Act; he thus contends that
these petitions before this court, against the order of AFT, are not
maintainable and the remedy of the petitioners is to approach either
the AFT for leave to approach the Supreme Court or to directly
approach the Supreme Court against the order of the AFT.
5. The counsel for the petitioners contends that the subject
matter of W.P. (C) 3517/2020 was not pro rata pension and the said
petition pertained to promotion and thus what was observed therein
would not apply. Attention is drawn to our observations in Brijlal
Kumar (supra) with respect to the orders of the AFT impugned in
these petitions, though not subject matter of Brijlal Kumar (supra).
6. We have in Brijlal Kumar (supra) held that AFT is bound by
the judgments of the High Court and was thus not entitled to, vide
the order impugned in these petitions, decide contrary to the dicta
of this court in Govind Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Union of India
2019 SCC OnLine Del 6425 [Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Civil)
No. 8813/2019 whereagainst was dismissed on 26th April, 2019],
Mohammad Israr Khan Vs. Union of India dated 11th December,
2019 in W.P. (C) 5642/2019 (DB) and Rakesh Kumar Vs. Union
of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 288. The same, as rightly
contended by the counsel for the petitioners, brings the matter
within the domain of Balkrishna Ram Vs. Union of India and
Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 442.
7. Though the petitions have come up today for the first time
but in view of the matter having being thrashed out by this court
over the years, it is not deemed necessary to keep these petitions
pending.
8. The petitions are allowed. The orders of the AFT impugned
in these petitions are set aside and the T.As. of the petitioners
before the AFT are allowed, by granting to each of the petitioners
the same relief as already granted to the petitioners in Govind
Kumar Shrivastava (supra) and Brijlal Kumar (supra) i.e. of
directing the respondents Indian Air Force to, within 12 weeks of
today, process the case of each of the petitioners for payment of
pro rata pension and to pay all arrears of pro rata pension to the
petitioners, from the month of respective discharge from Indian Air
Force and till the month of payment and to continue to pay pro rata
pension in future to the petitioners. If the payment is not made
within 12 weeks, the same shall also incur interest @ 7% per
annum from the expiry of 12 weeks till the date of payment.
9. The petitions are disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
ASHA MENON
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 08, 2020
ck
