'No Distinction Between Pro Rata Pension And Pension', Delhi High Court Condones Delay For Shortfall In Qualifying Service

A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed in a Petition seeking pro rata pension after voluntarily discharging from services in the Indian Air Force. The Court held that there was no clear distinction in the pension and pro rata pension mentioned in the order that put forth the conditions to condone a shortfall in the qualifying service of 10 years. Therefore, it was held that the Petitioner was entitled to pro rata pension. Background On 15.07.1997, the Petitioner was appointed to the Post of Radar Fitter in the Indian Air Force. After receiving a No Objection Certificate on 03.07.2006, he appeared in the interview for the post of Aircraft Technician (Radio) in the Indian Airlines Ltd. and was selected. On 18.10.2006, the Indian Air Force issued a Discharge Order to the Petitioner. Having a regular service of 9 years and 108 days, the Petitioner was finally discharged from service on 02.11.2006. The Petitioner approached the Court claiming 'pro-rata pension'. He relied on the Judgment in Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors., while claiming an entitlement to the pension. Relying on the aforementioned judgment, the Counsel for the Petitioner asserted that an employee of the Air Force was entitled to the grant of pro-rata pension after being in service of 10 years. Moreover, citing the Office Order dated 14.08.2001, the Counsel contended that a gap in service between 6 and 12 months could be overlooked for pension eligibility. Referring to another Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Surender Singh Parmar, (2015) 3 SCC 404, the Counsel stated that the rule laid down in relation to grant of pro rata pension with a delay of 6 of to 12 was applicable even in case of pro rata pension. Meanwhile, the Counsel for the Respondents stated that since the Employee took a voluntary retirement from services from the Indian Air Force, he was not entitled to pro rata pension. It was submitted that the Petitioner could not claim the benefit of condonation of the shortfall in service in terms of the Office Order dated 14.08.2001 because he hadn't completed 10 years of service and that his discharge from services was voluntary. Findings of the Court: Citing the judgement in Govind Kumar Srivastava's case, the Court held that the Petitioners were entitled to being granted pro rata pension as per the Notification dated 19.02.1987, read with the Order dated 04.11.2022, issued by the Ministry of Defence. The Court observed that although the Petitioner had obtained the No Objection Certificate from the Respondents to join Indian Airlines Ltd, they had not completed the10 years of qualifying service which was required for them to claim the pro-rata pension. Moreover, the Petitioner was short of less than 12 months in completing the service of 10 years. The Court perused the Office order dated 14.08.2001 which stated that a person with a shortfall beyond six months and up to 12 months could avail the benefit of condonation for grant of pension. It was observed that as per the Order, the terms 'pension' and 'pro rata pension' were not distinctly explained and there was no dissimilarity expressed. The Court held that the Order only authorized the Competent Authority to grant condonation of the shortfall in the qualifying service for grant of the pension irrespective of whether it was regular pension or pro-rata pension, for the period beyond 6 months up to 12 months. The Court referred to the decision in Surender Singh Parmar and stated that the Petitioner in the present case sought voluntary discharge form services and he was granted the same. However, he would still be entitled to the benefit of condonation of the shortfall in the qualifying service, the Court stated. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Order denying the grant of pro-rata pension to the petitioners. The Court referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, observing that the Petitioner was entitled to the grant of pro rata pension but the same was to be granted to him from a period 3 years prior to the date of the filing of the Petition. Accordingly, the Petition was disposed of. Case Title: SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORSCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1332 Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.Suresh Tripathy & Ms.Kiran Yadav, Advs. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Rishabh Sahu, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr.Amit Acharya, GP & Mr.Sameer Sharma, Adv. Click Here To Download Order/Judgement

'No Distinction Between Pro Rata Pension And Pension', Delhi High Court Condones Delay For Shortfall In Qualifying Service

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags