Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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       

Similar News