TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi 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