EX CPL LALIT KUMAR  Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

W.P.(C) 89/2021 & 114/2021 Page 1 of 3
$~Suppl. -12 & 17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 89/2021 & CM APPL.274/2021

EX CPL LALIT KUMAR ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Baljeet Singh, Advocate with Ms. Deepika Sheoran, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ….. Respondent s
Through: Ms. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate with
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocates for UOI.

+ W.P.(C) 114/202 1 & CM APPL.342 /2021

EX CPL SUBHASH CHANDER ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Baljeet Singh, Advocate with Ms. Deepika Sheoran, Advocate.

versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ….. Respondent s
Through: Ms. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari,
Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with
Mr. U ddhav Khanna and Mr.
Manpreet Kaur Bhasin , Advocates for
R-1-5.

% Date of Decision: 06
th January, 2021
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

2021:DHC:32-DBW.P.(C) 89/2021 & 114/2021 Page 2 of 3
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN , J (Oral)
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 :
1. The petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/s state s that all the petitioners in
these petitions claim to be similarly placed to the petitioners in Brijlal
Kumar v. Union of India and other s connected petitions 2020 SCC
OnLine Del 1477 and the petitioners in Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union
of India 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6425 (DB) [agains t 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.
2021:DHC:32-DBW.P.(C) 89/2021 & 114/2021 Page 3 of 3
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 there of 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 th e 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.

MANMOHAN, J
ASHA MENON, J
JANUARY 0 6, 2021
KA

2021:DHC:32-DB