High CourtsDivision Bench

Ex CPL Lalit Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

Delhi High Court · Decided on 6 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 DEL CK 0017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manmohan, J · Asha Menon, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 89, 114 Of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 274, 342 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 392 words

Manmohan, J

1.

The petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/s states that all the petitioners in these petitions claim to be similarly placed to the petitioners in Brijlal Kumar v.

Union of India and others connected petitions 2020 SCC OnLine Del 147 7and the petitioners in Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India 2019

SCC OnLine Del 6425 (DB )[against which Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8813/2019 has been dismissed on 26th April, 2019] and seek the same

relief as claimed therein i.e. of pro rata pension.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/s in all these petitions, on enquiry, states that the requisite No Objection Certificates (NOCs) have been filed

along with the petitions.

4.

Learned counsels for the respondents fairly state that subject to the right to verification and the right to appeal to the Supreme Court against the

judgment in Brijlal Kumar (supra) being saved, the petitions be disposed of.

5.

Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of, directing the respondents Indian Air Force that within twelve weeks herefrom, if they find the petitioners

to be similarly placed as the petitioners in Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and Brijlal Kumar (supra) and other connected petitions supra, to grant

them the same relief as granted in those petitions i.e. by payment of arrears of pro rata pension from the date of discharge till the date of payment and

in future to continue to pay pro rata pension to the petitioners. However, if on verification it is found that the petitioners or any of them, for any reason,

are not entitled to pro rata pension for reasons other than those stated in the judgments in Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and Brijlal Kumar (supra)

and other connected petitions supra being in personam, the respondents, within the said 12 weeks, shall communicate to the petitioners, not so found

entitled, the reasons in writing thereof and in which event, the petitioners shall be entitled to take further remedies there against.

6.

If the arrears of pro rata pension are not paid within twelve weeks, the same shall also incur interest thereon @ 7% per annum from the expiry of

twelve weeks till the date of payment.

7.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.