The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the Armed Forces' policy on condoning service shortfall for prorata pension, holding that the Armed Forces Tribunal is the appropriate forum.
Petition dismissed with liberty to raise the grievance before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~41
Date of decision: 06.03.2025
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sahaj Garg, SPC with Sgt Manish Kumar Singh and Sgt Mritunjay, Air Force Legal Cell
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 13512/2025 (Exemption)
W.P.(C) 2857/2025
“(a) A Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate order for quashing / setting aside Para „5‟ of Respondent‟s Notification No. 1(4)/2007/D(Pen/Policy)/Vol-II dated 04 Nov 2022 to the extent that the said Para „5‟ by an arbitrary & unreasonable retrospective implementation takes away accrued right of the petitioner for condonation of shortfall / deficiency of less than 01 year in his qualifying service for the purpose of grant of PRORATA
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2857/2025 Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 2.03.2025 11:06:45
Page 1 of 3
Pension; And / Or
(b) A Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate order for quashing / setting aside Respondent‟s order dated 09 Jan 2025 vide which representation of the Petitioner dated 01 Dec 2024 for grant of PRORATA pension by condonation of the shortfall / deficiency of less than one year in his qualifying service has been rejected; And / Or
(c) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate order / directions directing the respondents to grant PRORATA pension to the petitioner by condoning the shortfall of less than 01 year in his qualifying service.”
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2857/2025
Page 2 of 3
Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 2.03.2025 11:06:45
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
MARCH 6, 2025/sg/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2857/2025 Digitally Signed By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 2.03.2025 11:06:45
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal challenging the policy regarding condonation of service shortfall for prorata pension.
Whether the present petition can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India given the existence of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Roshan Lal Dhull v. Union of India & Ors.Referred¶20
W.P.(C) 1652/2024
Squadron Leader Neelam Chahar v. Union of India & Ors.Applied¶21
2023:DHC:4578-DB
CPL Chandra Prakash Chhipa (Retd)
Union of India
Navin Chawla
Shalinder Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
