No Pro Rata Pension For Air Force Officials Discharged On Being Found Unsuitable For Retention: Delhi High Court
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain recently rejected a claim for pro rata pension raised by discharged Indian Air Force personnel, noting that they were let go on having been found “unsuitable for retention”.The petitioners, who were enrolled in the category of PBOR (Personnel Below Officer Rank) and NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer),...
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain recently rejected a claim for pro rata pension raised by discharged Indian Air Force personnel, noting that they were let go on having been found “unsuitable for retention”.
The petitioners, who were enrolled in the category of PBOR (Personnel Below Officer Rank) and NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer), had served in the Air Force between 10-15 years. Their grievance was that their services were abruptly terminated and right to pension denied.
Contending that they were entitled to pro rata pension, the petitioners pressed that they had completed 10 years of service. They further challenged a letter of Ministry of Defense, which laid down pre-conditions for grant of pro rata pension, only in case of joining a Central Public Enterprise.
The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners were neither entitled to regular pension (as they had served for less than 15 years), nor pro rata pension (as they were discharged for being unsuitable). It was averred that only when an official got absorbed in another government organization, the minimum qualifying service was taken as 10 years and pro rata pension granted.
Observing that the petitioners had not completed 15 years of service, the court agreed with the respondents that there was no case for grant of regular pension.
With regard to pro rata pension, it was opined, “The principle of ‘pro rata pension’ works in a different domain altogether as the concerned official continues to be in service albeit in a different central government organization. Any such official would be entitled to receive pro rata pension (i) if he has already completed 10 years of service and (ii) is permanently absorbed or appointed in any Central Public Enterprise through proper channel”.
Distinguishing the petitioners’ case, the court remarked that “a person who is discharged on the ground of unsuitability cannot seek any parity with a person who continues to serve government, albeit, in a different organization.”
It added that the provision of pro rata pension has been made to ensure that officials subsequently absorbed in another government organization are not put to any loss. “Though the officer in question may not have completed the full period of qualifying service for being eligible to receive regular pension, he gets pro rata pension, on existence of certain pre-conditions”, the court said.
On the petitioners’ challenge to Ministry of Defense’s letter, the court held that the policy of pro rata pension had a totally different objective and applied universally to all officials who continued to serve another central government organization. There was no “unequal treatment amongst the equals” and as such, no discrimination or violation of policy was involved.
Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocate appeared for petitioners
Mr. Sanjeev Uniyal, Sr. Panel Counsel and Mr. Dhawal Uniyal, Advocate with Sgt. A. Prasad, DAV (Air Force) appeared for respondents
Case Title: Rajeev Nambiar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1037