The Delhi High Court has held that there is no distinction between the case of regular pension or a pro-rata pension as far as the condonation of the shortfall in Qualifying Service is concerned.

The Court was dealing with a Writ Petition claiming the grant of pro-rata pension from the respective dates of their discharge from service from the Indian Airforce.

The division-bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed, "...provision does not make any distinction between the case of regular pension or a pro-rata pension as far as the condonation of the shortfall in Qualifying Service is concerned. It authorises the Competent Authority to grant condonation of the shortfall in the qualifying service for grant of the pension, be it regular pension or pro-rata pension, for the period beyond 6 months upto 12 months."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Suresh Tripathy while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Rishabh Sahu.

The Petitioner had joined Indian Air Force as Radar Fitter and was discharged from service after completing 9 years and 108 days of regular service. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Court in Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors. read with the Office Order dated 14.08.2001, issued by the Ministry of Defence, the petitioner claimed the pro-rata pension.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in terms of the Judgment of Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra), an employee of the Indian Air Force is entitled to the grant of pro-rata pension on the completion of 10 years of service. He further submits that in terms of the Office Order dated 14.08.2001, a shortfall in service beyond 6 months and upto 12 months in the qualifying service for the grant of pension, can be condoned. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Surender Singh Parmar he submitted that this power of condonation shall be applicable even for the grant of pro-rata pension.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the petitioners having taken voluntary discharge from service from the Indian Air Force, are not entitled to the grant of pro-rata pension. He submitted that the petitioners have not completed the minimum qualifying service of 10 years before taking the discharge, and having taken voluntary discharge from service, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of condonation of the shortfall in service in terms of the Office Order dated 14.08.2001.

The Court at the outset noted that in terms of the Notification dated 19.02.1987, read with the Order dated 04.11.2022, issued by the Ministry of Defence, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the grant of pro-rata pension, provided they had completed 10 years of qualifying service. However, it pointed out that the petitioners have admittedly not completed the 10 years of qualifying service for the pro-rata pension, and there is a shortfall of below 12 months in completing the qualifying service.

The Court observed that Office Order dated 14.08.2001 doesn't make any distinction between regular and pro-rata pension.

"In the present case, the petitioners, having been granted discharge from service to join Indian Airlines on the basis of their own application, were entitled to the benefit of such condonation of the shortfall in the qualifying service. The Supreme Court in Surender Singh Parmar (supra), has extended the benefit of such condonation to the respondent therein," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Santosh Kumar Sahu Ex CPL vs. Union Of India & Ors (2024: DHC:9206-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioners- Advocate Suresh Tripathy,

Respondent- Senior Panel Counsel Rishabh Sahu, Government Pleader Amit Acharya and Advocate Sameer Sharma

Click here to read/ download Order:



Delhi High CourtPensionCondonation of DelayJustice Naveen ChawlaJustice Shalinder Kaur

Sheetal Joon