ARUN CHAUDHARY  Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

W.P. (C) 1059/2021 Page 1 of 3
$~Suppl. -26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P. (C) 1059/2021, CM APPL.2950/2021

ARUN CHAUDHARY …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate

Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS …..Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhag wan Swarup Shukla,
Advocate for respondent

% Date of Decision: 28th January , 2021

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN , J (Oral)
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. :
2. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner gives up prayer (i ) of
the writ petition. Consequently, the said prayer is dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner in this
petition claim s to be similarly placed to the petitioners in Brijlal Kumar v.
Union of India and others connected pet itions 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
2021:DHC:323-DB W.P. (C) 1059/2021 Page 2 of 3
relief as claimed therein i.e. of pro rata pension.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition, on enquiry, states
that the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) has been filed along with
the petition.
5. 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.
6. Accordingly, the petition and pending application are disposed of
directing the re spondents 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.
7. If the arrears of pro rata pension are not paid with in twelve weeks, the
same shall also incur interest thereon @ 7% per annum from the expiry of
twelve weeks till the date of payment.

2021:DHC:323-DB W.P. (C) 1059/2021 Page 3 of 3

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

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON, J
JANUARY 28, 2021
pkb
2021:DHC:323-DB