Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 12.12.2024
PRAMOD KUMAR BIDUA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Adv.
Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Mr. Kautilya Birat, Mr. Vedansh Anand, Advs.
Ms. L. Gangmei, Adv. for applicant in CM NO. 73027/2024
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 73027/2024
JUDGMENT
1. This application has been filed by the earlier counsels, Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmei and Mr. N. Bhushan, appointed by the petitioner, seeking withdrawal of the Vakalatnama
2. As Mr. Rakesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel has entered appearance for the petitioner, the application is allowed. The earlier counsels, Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmei and Mr. N. Bhushan are discharged from appearing for the petitioner.
3. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 12.02.2019 issued by respondent no. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of pro-rata pension by observing as under:-
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the Judgment dated 09.01.2019 of this Court in W.P.(C) 10026/2016, titled Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India and the Circular bearing no. No.1(4)/2007/D(Pen/Policy)/Vol-II dated 04.11.2022 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as „Circular dated 04.11.2022‟), submits that the ground given by the respondents for rejection of the relief of pro-rata pension to the petitioner is not acceptable.
5. We find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. In Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra), this Court had directed the respondents to grant pro-rata pension to the Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) as well. In the present case, the petitioner had joined the Indian Air Force on 09.01.1981. After taking due permission/no objection, he applied for the post of Labour Enforcement Officer with the Ministry of Labour. The said application was forwarded by the Air Headquarter to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) vide letter dated 20.06.1990. The petitioner was duly selected for the said post and was offered appointment vide letter dated 05.08.1992 by the UPSC. He joined the said post on 18.12.1992, as is evident from his Payment Pension Order.
7. Having served with the Indian Air Force for 11 years 11 months and 8 days, he was entitled to the grant of pro-rata pension in terms of the Circular dated 04.11.2022 and the Judgment of this Court in Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra). The rejection order proceeds on an incorrect basis that the petitioner requires 15 years of service for earning pension. The Impugned Order fails to appreciate that the petitioner‟s claim is not for regular pension, but for pro-rata pension, for which, in terms of the Circular dated 04.11.2022, only 10 years of service is required. As noted herein above, the petitioner satisfied this condition as also the condition that he had applied for and joined the Ministry of Labour after taking retirement from the IAF with the prior permission.
8. The Impugned Order also makes an artificial distinction from the other judgments by stating that the petitioners therein were discharged “on permanent absorption in HAL”. This distinction is totally fallacious and shows non-application of mind in terms of the Circular dated 04.11.2022.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the arrears of pro-rata pension to the petitioner confined to a period commencing from three years prior to the date of filing the present petition. The arrears shall be released to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% p.a. till the actual date of disbursement.
10. The petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J DECEMBER 12, 2024 SU/B/VS Click here to check corrigendum, if any