Delhi HC Directs Extension Of Pro Rata Pension To Non-Commissioned Officers of Defence Services As Well

While holding that such exclusion is discriminatory, the Single Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw has directed the Union Ministry of Defence to ensure that pro rata pension is now given to non-commissioned officers as well.

The court said:

'Rejections by the respondents IAF, of the representations of the petitioners preceding filing of these petitions for grant of pro rata pension, are quashed and a mandamus is issued to the respondents IAF to, within twelve weeks hereof, pay to each petitioner, arrears of pro rata pension, from the date of discharge, till the date of payment, and to, with effect from the month of March, 2021 commence payment of future pro rata pension to each of the petitioners. If the arrears are not paid within twelve weeks as aforesaid, the same will also carry interest at 7% per annum, from the expiry of twelve weeks, till the date of payment.'

The order has come in a writ petition moved by 40 retired officers impugning Circular No. 8(3)/86/A/D(Pension/Services) dated 19th February, 1987 issued by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to the extent that it grants the benefit of pro rata pension only to the Commissioned Officers of the Defence Services and not to the Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs)/Persons Below Officer Rank (PsBOR) of the Defence Services, as discriminatory.

The Petitioners argued that the exclusion of non-commissioned officers from the benefit of pro rata pension is arbitrary and discriminatory, hence it violates Articles 14,19, and 21 of the Constitution.

The court was further informed by the Petitioners that the Armed Forces Tribunal has refused to provide relief in similar matters despite the previous order of the Delhi High Court in the case of Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India.

During the course of the proceedings, the Indian Air Force, which was one of the Respondents in the matter, argued that the award of pro rata pension carries with it, a financial burden of Rs.44 crores per month and of Rs.250 crores in payment of arrears.

The court also criticised the decisions of the AFT the petitions seeking the similar relief by holding that:

'The reason given by AFT for indulging in such adventurism, is also fallacious. Merely because the Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP preferred against the judgment of this

Court in Govind Kumar Srivastava supra kept the question of law open, without specifying whether it was the question of law qua maintainability of the writ petition vis-a-vis jurisdiction of AFT or the question of law qua the circular/letter dated 19th February, 1987 being discriminatory, did not make the judgment of this Court in Govind Kumar

Srivastava any less binding on the AFT. The observation that the question of law was so left open, entitled only the Supreme Court to consider the said question of law when faced with a

similar challenge and did not entitle the AFT, orders whereof are subject to judicial review of the High Court, to take a view contrary to that taken by this Court.'

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]