Delhi HC: No Difference Between Regular Pension and Pro-Rata Pension for Shortfall Condonation in Indian Airforce Service.
The Delhi High Court has determined that there is no difference between regular pensions and pro-rata pensions regarding the approval of shortfalls in Qualifying Service. The Court addressed a Writ Petition seeking pro-rata pension from the dates the individuals were discharged from the Indian Air Force. Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur noted that the provision does not differentiate between regular and pro-rata pensions when it comes to condoning shortfalls in Qualifying Service. It allows the Competent Authority to approve these shortfalls for pensions, whether regular or pro-rata, for periods exceeding 6 months up to 12 months.
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Suresh Tripathy, while Advocate Rishabh Sahu represented the Respondent. The Petitioner served in the Indian Air Force as a Radar Fitter and was discharged after 9 years and 108 days of service. Citing the Court’s ruling in Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors. and the Office Order from the Ministry of Defence dated 14.08.2001, the Petitioner sought pro-rata pension. The Petitioner’s counsel argued that, according to the Govind Kumar Srivastava ruling, Indian Air Force personnel are eligible for pro-rata pension after 10 years of service. He also mentioned that the Office Order allows for condoning service shortfalls of more than 6 months and up to 12 months for pension eligibility. Additionally, he referenced a Supreme Court ruling in Union of India & Anr. v. Surender Singh Parmar, stating that the condonation power applies to pro-rata pensions as well.
Counsel for the Respondents argued that since the petitioners voluntarily left their positions in the Indian Air Force, they are not eligible for pro-rata pension. He stated that the petitioners did not fulfill the required minimum service of 10 years before their discharge, and because they chose to leave voluntarily, they cannot benefit from the condonation of their service shortfall as per the Office Order dated 14.08.2001. The Court noted that according to the Notification dated 19.02.1987 and the Order dated 04.11.2022 from the Ministry of Defence, the petitioners could receive pro-rata pension if they had completed 10 years of qualifying service. However, it was highlighted that the petitioners had not reached the 10-year mark, falling short by less than 12 months.
The Court pointed out that the Office Order dated 14.08.2001 does not differentiate between regular and pro-rata pensions. It stated, “In this case, the petitioners, who were discharged to join Indian Airlines based on their own request, should receive the benefit of condoning their service shortfall. The Supreme Court in Surender Singh Parmar (supra) has granted such condonation to the respondent in that case.” Consequently, the Petition was granted.
Cause Title: Santosh Kumar Sahu Ex CPL vs. Union Of India & Ors (2024: DHC:9206-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocate Suresh Tripathy
Respondent: Senior Panel Counsel Rishabh Sahu, Government Pleader Amit Acharya and Advocate Sameer Sharma
