Pawan Kumar v. Union Of India And ORS.

$~5 to 8 & 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2251/2020 VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr.T.P. Singh, Sr. Panel counsel with Mr.Pradeep Jha, Advocate for UOI + W.P.(C) 2253/2020 SNEHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr.T.P. Singh, Sr. Panel counsel with Mr.Pradeep Jha, Advocate for UOI + W.P.(C) 2387/2020 MD. IQBAL ABID ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel for UOI with Mr.Ashish Singh, Mr.Kabir Hazarika and Mr.Hem Kumar, Advocates for R-1, 2 & 3

+ W.P.(C) 2388/2020 UDAI PRATAP SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel for UOI with Mr.Ashish Singh, Mr.Kabir Hazarika and Mr.Hem Kumar, Advocates for R - 1 to 3 + W.P.(C) 2508/2020 PAWAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Vijay Joshi, Sr.Panel Counsel for UOI and Ms.Vinny Shangloo with Mr.Rishabh Relan, Advocates for UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

O R D E R

% 12.03.2020 CM No. 7856/2020 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 2251/2020 CM No. 7862/2020 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 2253/2020 CM No. 8344/2020 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 2387/2020 CM No. 8791/2020 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 2508/2020 1.

Exemptions allowed subject to just exceptions. 2.

The applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2251/2020, 2253/2020, W.P.(C) 2387/2020, W.P.(C) 2388/2020, W.P.(C) 2508/2020 3.

The petitioner in each of these petitions seeks pro rata pension, after having been permitted to leave the employment of Air Force as a NonCommissioned Officer, though after 10 years of service but before 15 years of service to be eligible for pension.

4.

This Court vide judgment dated 9th January, 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 10026/2016 titled Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India has held the Circular dated 19th February, 1987 giving benefit of pro rata pension only to Commissioned Officers leaving employment before qualifying the service for pension and not giving the same benefit to Non-Commissioned Officers, to be discriminatory and held the Non-Commissioned Officer leaving employment after 10 years of service but before 15 years of qualifying service also to be entitled for pro rata pension. 5.

The counsel for the petitioner refers also to order dated 15th January, 2020 in W.P.(C) 9524/2019 titled Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India. 6.

The counsel for the petitioners on inquiry states that the petitioner in each of the petitions has completed 10 years of service and was relieved from employment as Non-Commissioned Officer with the NOC of the respondents.

7.

The counsels for the respondents fairly agree that on the basis of the aforesaid dicta, the petitioner in each of these petitions is also entitled to pro rata pension.

8.

Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondents, to grant to each of the petitioners, upon verification, pro rata pension, from the date he was

discharged from service, with arrears being paid not later than 12 weeks from today, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 6 % p.a. on the said amount for the period of delay. 9.

With the aforesaid directions, the petitions are disposed of. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J MARCH 12, 2020 SU/