Santosh Kumar Pal (Ex Sgt ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2021 Latest Caselaw 322 Del

$~Suppl.-17 & 25
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P. (C) 1099/2021, CM APPL. 3060/2021
       SANTOSH KUMAR PAL (EX SGT 762571-H) .....Petitioner
                        Through: Ms. Pallavi Awasthi, Advocate.
                                 Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               .....Respondents
                     Through:             Ms. Prerna Chopra, Proxy Counsel
                                          for Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate
+      W.P. (C) 1151/2021, CM APPL. 3252/2021
       YASHPAL SINGH & ORS.                       .....Petitioners
                        Through: Ms. Pallavi Awasthi, Advocate.
                                 Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               .....Respondents
                     Through:             Ms. Prerna Chopra, Proxy Counsel
                                          for Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate
%                          Date of Decision: 29th January, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
                                  JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (Oral):

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners in t his petitions claim 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 seek t h e same relief as claimed therein i.e. of pro rata pension.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on enquiry, states that the requisite No Objection Certificated (NOC) had been given.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly states t hat su bject t o t he right to verification and the right of appeal to the Supreme Court against t he judgment in Brijlal Kumar (supra) being saved, the petitions be disposed of.

4. Accordingly, the petitions and applications are disposed of direct ing the respondents Indian Air Force that within twelve weeks herefrom, if t h ey find the petitioners to be similarly placed as the petitioners in Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and Brijlal Kumar (supra) and ot her con nected petitions supra, to grant them the same relief as granted in those petitions i.e. by payment of arrears of pro rata pension from the date of discharge t ill t he date of payment and in future to continue t o pay pro rat a pen sion t o t he petitioners. However, if on verification it is found that t he pet itioners, for any reason, are not entitled to pro rata pension for reasons other t han t hose stated in the judgments in Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and Brijlal Kumar (supra) and other connected petitions supra being in personam, t he respondents, within the said twelve weeks, shall communicate to the petitioners, not so found entitled, the reasons in writing thereof and in which event, the petitioners shall be entitled to take further remedies there against.

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 t he expiry of twelve weeks till the date of payment.

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON, J JANUARY 29, 2021/ck