Delhi HC: No Difference Between Regular Pension and Pro-Rata Pension for Shortfall Condonation in Indian Airforce Service.
The Delhi High Court has stated that there is no difference between regular pensions and pro-rata pensions regarding the approval of shortfalls in Qualifying Service. The Court was reviewing a Writ Petition that sought pro-rata pensions from the dates the individuals were discharged from the Indian Air Force. Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur noted that the rules do not differentiate between regular and pro-rata pensions when it comes to condoning shortfalls in Qualifying Service. They confirmed that the Competent Authority can approve these shortfalls for pensions, whether regular or pro-rata, for periods between 6 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 decision in Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors. and the Ministry of Defence’s Office Order from 14.08.2001, the Petitioner sought a 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 pensions after 10 years of service. He also mentioned that the Office Order allows for condoning service shortfalls of 6 to 12 months for pension eligibility. Additionally, he referenced a Supreme Court ruling in Union of India & Anr. v. Surender Singh Parmar, asserting 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 exception for short service as outlined in the Office Order dated 14.08.2001. The Court noted that according to the Notification from 19.02.1987 and the Order from 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 the shortfall in qualifying service. 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
