SANTOSH KUMAR  Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

W.P. (C) 106 9/2021 Page 1 of 3
$~Suppl. -29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P. (C) 1069/2021, CM APPL.2987/2021
SANTOSH KUMAR …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate

Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS …..Respondents
Through: Mr.Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC.

% 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. 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 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 Peti tion (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
2021:DHC:325-DB W.P. (C) 106 9/2021 Page 2 of 3
No Objection Certificate (NOC) 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 impugned l etter dated 27th
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. October 2020 by which
the request of the petitioner for grant of pro rata pension has been rejected
on the ground that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was only in
favour of the individual concerned and there was no Court order with regard
to the petitioner , is set aside. Further, the petition 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.

2021:DHC:325-DB W.P. (C) 106 9/2021 Page 3 of 3

7. The order be uploaded o n 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:325-DB