Union of India and others v. U.B.S. Gaur and others), such a benefit ought not to have been granted to

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Raj Kumar Singh learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the Union of India.

2. Since the issues involved in both the aforesaid writ petitions are interconnected, as such, the same are heard together and decided by a common order.

3. The writ petition i.e. Writ A No. 7255 of 2023 filed by the Union of India under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen out of the judgment and order rendered by the Armed Page No. 1 of 5 Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No. 331 of 2021 on 6.5.2022. The tribunal while allowing the said Original Application was pleased to direct as under : “15. Accordingly, impugned order dated 12.02.2021 is set aside and applicant is held entitled to grant of pro- rata pension. Respondents are directed to pay pro-rata pension to the applicant w.e.f. his next date of discharge along-with arrears within a period of three months from today. Default will invite interest @ 8% p.a.”

4. The writ petition i.e. Writ A No.1992 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner- Dharm Raj, Ex Cpl Service No. 715385 K(who is the sole respondent in Writ A No. 7255 of 2023) for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the learned Armed Forces Tribunal to expedite the Execution Application No. 280 of 2022 and execute the judgment and order dated

6.5.20222 passed by the learned Tribunal in Original Application No. 331 of 2021.

5. Learned counsel for the Union of India has argued that the judgment of the learned tribunal extends the benefit of pro-rata pension scheme to the respondent Dharam Raj in contravention of the scheme. Thus, as per the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 342 of 2000(Union of India and others versus U.B.S. Gaur and others), such a benefit ought not to have been granted to the respondent.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Dharam Raj has argued that the judgment referred to by the Union of India in the Page No. 2 of 5 subsequent round of litigation has been considered and the real benefit as envisaged under the pro-rata pension scheme was exhaustively dealt with by the Delhi High Court keeping in view the earlier judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Brijlal Kumar versus Union of India and others connected petitions reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1477 and in the case of Govind Kumar Srivastava versus Union of India reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6425(DB) against which the Special Leave Petition arising therefrom having been instituted before the Apex Court was dismissed on 26.4.2019.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent Dharam Raj has further argued that once the judgment in the aforementioned case attains finality with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court and the order which has been implemented by the Union of India leaves no room for doubt as to why the same benefit may not be extended to the respondent, the submission putforth to the contrary has no force.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the observations made by the learned tribunal to the effect that the beneficial scheme of pro-rata pension is to be construed in the light of the relevant policy decision as well as the judgments on the subject which entitle the claimant for the benefit granted to him, therefore, the submissions made by learned counsel for the Union of India do not merit for a different view to be taken in the case. Page No. 3 of 5

9. We have carefully gone through the judgments placed before us particularly the judgment rendered in the case of Brijlal Kumar versus Union of India and others connected petitions decided on

24.11.2020 of which the benefit has been extended in the subsequent judgments as well, therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow.

10.The case of the respondent Dharam Raj is squarely covered from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of Subodh Kumar(EX CPL-786978-R) versus Union of India and others in W.P.(C) 9868/2023 & CM. APPL. 37954/2023. Para 7 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :-

7. Accordingly, 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 Brijll 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. Needless to state that if any documents are asked for by the respondents, the same shall be furnished by the petitioner within a week. Page No. 4 of 5

11.The judgment impugned herein shall be implemented in the same manner in which it has been acted upon for the purposes of extending the benefit of pro-rata pension to the similarly situated discharged employee of the Indian Air Force.

12.This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from today inclusive of the arrears, failing which, an interest will be paid at same rate of interest i.e. @8% from the expiry of period of two months till the date of payment.

13.In view of the aforesaid directions/observations, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.

14.It is clarified that the right of appeal as has been protected under various orders passed by the other High Courts shall remain intact notwithstanding the implementation of the impugned order but shall remain subject to the outcome of relief granted in appeal, if any.

15.The Armed forces Tribunal in the execution proceedings instituted vide Execution Application No.280 of 2022, Dharm Raj, Ex-CPL versus Union of India and others shall pass necessary orders having regard to the order passed by this Court as aforesaid. (Manish Kumar J.) (A. R. Masoodi J.) Order Date :- 24.2.2025 kanhaiya Page No. 5 of 5 KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Raj Kumar Singh learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the Union of India.

2. Since the issues involved in both the aforesaid writ petitions are interconnected, as such, the same are heard together and decided by a common order.

3. The writ petition i.e. Writ A No. 7255 of 2023 filed by the Union of India under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen out of the judgment and order rendered by the Armed Page No. 1 of 5 Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No. 331 of 2021 on 6.5.2022. The tribunal while allowing the said Original Application was pleased to direct as under : “15. Accordingly, impugned order dated 12.02.2021 is set aside and applicant is held entitled to grant of pro- rata pension. Respondents are directed to pay pro-rata pension to the applicant w.e.f. his next date of discharge along-with arrears within a period of three months from today. Default will invite interest @ 8% p.a.”

4. The writ petition i.e. Writ A No.1992 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner- Dharm Raj, Ex Cpl Service No. 715385 K(who is the sole respondent in Writ A No. 7255 of 2023) for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the learned Armed Forces Tribunal to expedite the Execution Application No. 280 of 2022 and execute the judgment and order dated

6.5.20222 passed by the learned Tribunal in Original Application No. 331 of 2021.

5. Learned counsel for the Union of India has argued that the judgment of the learned tribunal extends the benefit of pro-rata pension scheme to the respondent Dharam Raj in contravention of the scheme. Thus, as per the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 342 of 2000(Union of India and others versus U.B.S. Gaur and others), such a benefit ought not to have been granted to the respondent.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Dharam Raj has argued that the judgment referred to by the Union of India in the Page No. 2 of 5 subsequent round of litigation has been considered and the real benefit as envisaged under the pro-rata pension scheme was exhaustively dealt with by the Delhi High Court keeping in view the earlier judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Brijlal Kumar versus Union of India and others connected petitions reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1477 and in the case of Govind Kumar Srivastava versus Union of India reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6425(DB) against which the Special Leave Petition arising therefrom having been instituted before the Apex Court was dismissed on 26.4.2019.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent Dharam Raj has further argued that once the judgment in the aforementioned case attains finality with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court and the order which has been implemented by the Union of India leaves no room for doubt as to why the same benefit may not be extended to the respondent, the submission putforth to the contrary has no force.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the observations made by the learned tribunal to the effect that the beneficial scheme of pro-rata pension is to be construed in the light of the relevant policy decision as well as the judgments on the subject which entitle the claimant for the benefit granted to him, therefore, the submissions made by learned counsel for the Union of India do not merit for a different view to be taken in the case. Page No. 3 of 5

9. We have carefully gone through the judgments placed before us particularly the judgment rendered in the case of Brijlal Kumar versus Union of India and others connected petitions decided on

24.11.2020 of which the benefit has been extended in the subsequent judgments as well, therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow.

10.The case of the respondent Dharam Raj is squarely covered from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of Subodh Kumar(EX CPL-786978-R) versus Union of India and others in W.P.(C) 9868/2023 & CM. APPL. 37954/2023. Para 7 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :-

7. Accordingly, 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 Brijll 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. Needless to state that if any documents are asked for by the respondents, the same shall be furnished by the petitioner within a week. Page No. 4 of 5

11.The judgment impugned herein shall be implemented in the same manner in which it has been acted upon for the purposes of extending the benefit of pro-rata pension to the similarly situated discharged employee of the Indian Air Force.

12.This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from today inclusive of the arrears, failing which, an interest will be paid at same rate of interest i.e. @8% from the expiry of period of two months till the date of payment.

13.In view of the aforesaid directions/observations, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.

14.It is clarified that the right of appeal as has been protected under various orders passed by the other High Courts shall remain intact notwithstanding the implementation of the impugned order but shall remain subject to the outcome of relief granted in appeal, if any.

15.The Armed forces Tribunal in the execution proceedings instituted vide Execution Application No.280 of 2022, Dharm Raj, Ex-CPL versus Union of India and others shall pass necessary orders having regard to the order passed by this Court as aforesaid. (Manish Kumar J.) (A. R. Masoodi J.) Order Date :- 24.2.2025 kanhaiya Page No. 5 of 5 KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench