Dismissal Of Suit For Default Doesn't Bar Fresh Partition Suit As Cause Of Action Is Recurring; Second Rejection Of Plaint Application Barred By Res Judicata: Telangana High Court Married Daughter Entitled To Appointment As Fair Price Shop Dealer On Compassionate Grounds; Marital Status No Bar: Allahabad High Court Finding Of Title Cannot Be Recorded In Injunction Simpliciter Suit Absent Specific Pleadings & Issues: Andhra Pradesh High Court Conviction Not A Condition Precedent For Confiscation Of Vehicle Used In Forest Offence: Bombay High Court Advocate’s Professional Call To Client No Proof Of Conspiracy; Sterling Evidence Like CCTV Can Justify Quashing FIR: Gujarat High Court Revenue Entries Changed Without Notifying Affected Parties Are Void; High Court Can Upset Perverse Findings In Second Appeal: Himachal Pradesh HC Mandatory Injunction For Removing Sunshades Or Closing Windows Cannot Be Granted If No Encroachment Is Proved: Karnataka High Court Employer Cannot Resume Work Through Third Parties Until 30-Day Period For Contractor’s Post-Termination Compliance Expires: Madras High Court Circumstantial Chain Fails If Prosecution Doesn't Rule Out Accidental Death: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Wife’s Status As Practicing Lawyer Or Professional Qualification No Absolute Bar To Grant Of Interim Maintenance: Orissa High Court Legally Wedded Wife And Second Wife Entitled To Equal Share In Family Pension If Second Wife Was Nominated & Cared For Deceased: Andhra Pradesh 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