In relief to ex-Indian Air Force corporal, Telangana High Court rejects bar on pension for non-commissioned officers

Relief granted

The court was referring to a Government of India circular dated February 19, 1987, which provides for the grant of pro-rata pension to defence personnel including that of the Indian Air Force who leave service and join public sector undertakings, but which had been interpreted by authorities to apply only to commissioned officers and those absorbed in central PSUs.

Relying on earlier judicial precedent, the Telangana High Court held that this restrictive interpretation, excluding non-commissioned officers and those joining state public enterprises, was discriminatory and could not be used to deny the petitioner’s claim for pension benefits.

Setting aside the impugned order dated December 10, 2019, the court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for grant of pro-rata pension for the service rendered in the Indian Air Force.

The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were also closed.

“As long as the enterprise is a public enterprise…the respondents ought to entertain the case of the petitioner for pro-rata pension,” the Telangana High Court observed, making it clear that the benefit cannot be denied on narrow classifications.

Court’s analysis on merits

• On the substantive issue, the court rejected the distinction between commissioned and non-commissioned officers, observing that such a classification had already been found discriminatory in earlier judicial pronouncements.
• It further held that the nature of the public enterprise, whether central or state, was not decisive.
• What weighed with the Telangana High Court was the fact that the petitioner, former Indian Air Force corporal had applied through proper channels, obtained the necessary permissions, and was allowed to exit defence service specifically to take up employment in a public sector undertaking.
• The court emphasised that once these conditions were satisfied, the authorities were bound to consider his case for a pro-rata pension fairly and in accordance with the law.

Background: From Air Force to civil employment

• Ramachandram joined the Indian Air Force on August 11, 1989, as a radio technician and served for over 11 years, rising to the rank of Corporal. He also claimed to have served during the Kargil War as a non-commissioned officer.
• In 2000, with due permission and a no-objection certificate from the competent authorities, he applied for and secured a position as an assistant engineer with Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation (APGENCO).
• He was discharged from the Indian Air Force on December 13, 2000, to take up the civilian role.
• Following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, he was later allocated to Telangana and continued under the Telangana State Power Generation Corporation (TSGENCO).
• Despite having transitioned through proper channels, his claim for pro-rata pension filed in November 2019 and reiterated in February 2020 was rejected by the Indian Air Force.
• The Telangana High Court was examining the legality of the denial of pro-rata pension after his discharge from the Indian Air Force and his subsequent absorption into a state-run power utility.

Petitioner’s arguments

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the denial was arbitrary and discriminatory.

Reliance was placed on a ruling of the Delhi High Court in Govind Kumar Srivastava vs Union of India, where a similar restriction limiting pro-rata pension to commissioned officers was struck down.

The Supreme Court had dismissed the Union’s challenge to that ruling, lending finality to the principle.

The counsel contended that once the petitioner had been allowed to leave service and join a public sector undertaking through proper channels, he was entitled to have his past service counted for pension on a pro-rata basis, regardless of his rank.

Centre’s stand

The Centre opposed the plea on multiple grounds.

It argued that a pro-rata pension was not available to non-commissioned officers like the petitioner and was limited to commissioned ranks.

Additionally, it was contended that the benefit applied only to those absorbed in Central Public Sector Enterprises, whereas the petitioner had joined a State Public Sector Enterprise.

The Union also raised a preliminary objection, stating that the petitioner ought to have approached the Armed Forces Tribunal rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the high court.

Court’s findings on maintainability

The Telangana High Court first addressed the objection regarding jurisdiction.

It noted that the Armed Forces Tribunal had previously held it could not adjudicate challenges to government circulars.

In such circumstances, the high court found no bar in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Delhi High Court upholds forced retirement of IAF employee who ‘faked’ union receipts to collect money

On May 4, the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea by a civilian employee of the Indian Air Force, ruling that financial irregularity and forgery, even if ostensibly linked to Union affairs, cannot be excluded from disciplinary oversight.

A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan was dealing with a plea of the IAF employee challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order, which upheld the punishment of his compulsory retirement for alleged unauthorised money collection and use of forged documents.

“Acts which impinge upon integrity and probity cannot be excluded from disciplinary oversight merely on the ground that they are associated with union-related activities,” the Delhi High Court said on May 4.

The Delhi High Court observed that the petitioner, not being an office bearer of the Union and without any authority, collected subscription amounts from civilian employees of the station in the name of the Union. Further, he is alleged to have forged receipt books by unauthorised use of the Union’s registration number.

It continued, “The Rule 3 (1) CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, mandate that every government servant shall maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, and shall refrain from conduct unbecoming of a government servant.”