High CourtsDivision Bench(2021) 03 DEL CK 0050

Dhurendra Raghav, EX CPL 769090-N vs Union Of India & Ors

Delhi High Court · Decided on 3 March 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manmohan, J · Asha Menon, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 2649 Of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 7853 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 408 words
1.

The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner in the present petition claims to be similarly placed to the petitioners in Brijlal Kumar v.

Union of India and others connected petitions 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1477 and 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 seeks the same

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

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on enquiry, states that the requisite No Objection Certificates (NOCs) had been given.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that subject to the right to verification and the right of appeal to the Supreme Court against the

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

5.

Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending application is disposed of directing the respondents Indian Air Force that within twelve

weeks herefrom, if they find the petitioner to be similarly placed as the petitioners in Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and Brijlal Kumar (supra) and

other connected petitions supra, to grant him 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 petitioner. However, if on verification it is found that the

petitioner, for any reason, is 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 twelve weeks, shall communicate to

the petitioner, not so found entitled, the reasons in writing thereof and in which event, the petitioner shall be entitled to take further remedies there

against. Needless to state that if any documents are asked for by the respondents, the same shall be furnished by the petitioner within a week.

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.