Disciplinary Inquiry Stands Vitiated If No Oral Evidence Is Led To Prove Charges: Allahabad High Court Quashes Punishment Against SDM Delay In Lodging FIR For Outraging Modesty Not Fatal; Victims Often Hesitate Due To Social Stigma: Bombay High Court Maintenance Under PWDV Act Must Be Awarded From Date Of Filing Application, Not Date Of Order: Calcutta High Court Plea Of Alibi Must Be Proved With Absolute Certainty By Accused; Prosecution Case Must Still Stand On Its Own Legs: Delhi High Court Freezing Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Amount Is Disproportionate, Violates Article 21: Gujarat High Court Catch-Up Rule Applies In Absence Of State Law On Consequential Seniority; General Category Candidates Regain Seniority Upon Promotion: Jharkhand High Court Relaxation Of Voting Disqualification For Members Of 'Federal' Co-operative Societies Applies To 'Apex' Societies Too: Karnataka High Court Absence Of Express Trust Not Decisive; Public Dedication Can Be Inferred From Conduct Of Parties & Long User: Kerala High Court Bhojshala Is A Temple Of Goddess Saraswati, 2003 Order Permitting Namaz Quashed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Petitioner Seeking LOC Quashing Suppressed Foreign Citizenship; Not Entitled To Relief Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Protection Of Forests Outweighs Private Rights Of Encroachers; Voter IDs, Aadhaar Don't Confer Right To Stay In Reserved Forest: Gauhati High Court Section 294-A IPC: Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Without Prior Written Consent From State Government Or District Magistrate: Orissa High Court Defective Affidavit Not A Ground To Reject Election Petition At Threshold; It Is A Curable Defect: Uttarakhand High Court Witness Cannot Be Confronted During Cross-Examination With Documents Executed By Third Parties Without Prior Production: Telangana 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