RAJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitions in this group arise from the same set of facts and seek the same relief. They can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) For the purpose of facts, it would be sufficient to refer to the facts narrated in Writ Petition (C) No. 569/2001. The petitioners were holding different posts under the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "the Force"), constituted under the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the BSF Act"). The First Respondent is the Union of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Second Respondent is the Director General of the Border Security Force.

(3.) On 27-12-1995 the Second Respondent with the approval of the First Respondent and in consultation with the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare issued a G.O./Circular notifying that the Government had agreed with their views that "a member of the force is entitled to get pensionary benefits on resignation under Rule 19 of the said Rules provided he has put in requisite number of years of service and fulfills all other eligibility conditions." (The Rules referred to are the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as "the BSF Rules"). This G.O./Circular provided that the competent authority may, "having regard to the special circumstances of a case, permit a member of the force to resign from the force before attainment of the age of retirement or before putting in such number of years of service as may be necessary under the rules to be eligible for retirement." The circular empowered the competent authority granting such permission "to make such reductions in the pension or other retirement benefits of a member of the Force, if so eligible..." (emphasis added). The circular also advised the competent authority that in future while accepting the resignation of a member of the Force, the order should specify the reduction to be made in the pension, if any, as per the provisions contained in proviso (b) to Rule 19(1) of the BSF Rules, and further that failure to do so would imply that there was no reduction in the pension made.