Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

Indian Air Force Personnel Discharged for Unsuitability - Denied Pro Rata Pension: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment delivered on October 30, 2023, the Delhi High Court has ruled that former Indian Air Force personnel discharged under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of Indian Air Force Rules, 1969, on the grounds of “unsuitability for retention in the Air Force” are not entitled to receive “pro rata pension.” The court’s decision came after a petition filed by the discharged personnel, who argued for their eligibility to receive the pension after completing 10 years of service.

The judgment emphasizes the distinction between “regular pension” and “pro rata pension,” highlighting that Regulation 121 of Pension Regulations 1961 requires a minimum of 15 years of service for eligibility for the former. The petitioners, having served for less than 15 years, did not meet the criteria for “regular pension.”

Furthermore, the court clarified that the concept of “pro rata pension” is intended for those individuals who continue to serve in central government organizations after their tenure in the Indian Air Force. This special provision is designed to ensure that such individuals are not at a disadvantage regarding pensionary benefits.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain, in their judgment, stated, “The doctrine of equality, enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is intended to advance justice by avoiding discrimination. It stands attracted when equals are treated as unequals or where unequals are treated as equals. A person who is discharged on the ground of unsuitability cannot seek any parity with a person who continues to serve the government, albeit in a different organization.”

The court also noted that the term "pro rata" denotes ”proportionality,” and the policy of “pro rata pension” universally applies to officials who choose to serve in another central government organization, not those discharged for unsuitability.

Delhi High Court concluded that the petitioners did not meet the preconditions for “pro rata pension” and were not entitled to it. The court found no discrimination or unequal treatment in this regard and dismissed the petition.

This ruling reaffirms the distinction between different types of pensions and clarifies the eligibility criteria for “pro rata pension” in cases involving former Indian Air Force personnel.

 

Date of Decision:  30 October  2023

RAJEEV NAMBIAR AND ORS VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS       

Latest Legal News