Delhi High Court
Sivakumar Mathada vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 February, 2022
$~S-63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2817/2022 & CM APPL.8127/2022
SIVAKUMAR MATHADA ..... Petitioner
Through: Om Prakash Kr.Srivastava, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 15th February, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the Ministry of
Defence's Policy No.8(3)/86/A/D(Pension/Services),and the rational policy
criteria in Policy dated 19th February, 1987. Petitioner also seeks a direction
to the Respondents to release the pro-rata pension to the Petitioner from date
of discharge from Air Force with associated benefits, including interest.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was
discharged from Indian Air Force after more than ten years, eleven Months
and fifteen days of service and is currently serving in the Indian Institute of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
18:44:24
Management as a Chief Administrative Officer, which is a Central
Government Institute.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondents vide its
reply to legal notice dated 06th July 2021, intimated the petitioner that there
is no provision for grant of pro-rata pension to an Airman in the Pension
Regulations for the Air Force and that the reliefs granted by the Delhi High
Court in other writ petitions was specific to the Petitioners therein.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court
in Govind Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India, WP(C) 10026/2016
wherein the pro-rata pension was directed to be granted to PBORs.
6. Issue notice. Mr.Vikrant N.Goyal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf
of respondents. Though he admits that the matter is covered by the judgment
of this Court in Govind Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India, WP(C)
10026/2016, he submits that the petitioner had not furnished the No
Objection Certificate ('NOC') from the Department.
7. However, a perusal of the reply to the legal notice dated 6th July, 2021
reveals that this is not the ground for rejection of the request for grant of
pro-rata pension. It is settled law that the grounds for rejection cannot be
enlarged by way of a counter affidavit or an oral argument [See: M.S.Gill
Vs. CEC, (1978) 1 SCC 405]. Consequently, the ground urged by learned
counsel for the respondents is untenable in law.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the judgment of this Court in
Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra), the present writ petition is allowed to the
extent that the respondents are directed to release the pro-rata pension to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
18:44:24
petitioner from the date of discharge of Air Force with associated benefits
within eight weeks. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition and
pending application stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
TS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
18:44:24
