PRADEEP KUMAR HOODA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was enrolled in BSF as ASI (Clk) on 8.6.1987. He says that Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, circulated letter dated 27.12.1995 providing grant of pension for those who had or would resign under Rule 19 of BSF Rules on completion of 10 years' service. He claims that he also submitted his resignation pursuant thereto on 24.6.1997 and asked for full pensionary benefits. But his resignation was accepted without grant of any pensionary benefits. He filed representation against this and his case was recommended by his Commandant also by letter dated 7.8.1997. But even this did not work and his claim was eventually rejected by order dated 16.8.1997. While all this was going on respondents changed their policy doing away with grant of pensionary benefits in cases but option was given to those who had reported back on duty. He was also informed of this and asked to report by communication dated 15.10.1998 addressed by his Commandant. He reported for duty in compliance but was not allowed to join and discharge his duty. He has now filed this petition for direction to respondents to grant him pensionary benefits or allow him to join and discharge his duties to enable him to complete qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits.

(2.) Respondents' dispute that he had submitted his resignation under Ministry's circular dated 27.12.1995. According to them he had done so for his own domestic compulsions and his resignation was duly accepted by order dated 31.7.1997 informing him that he would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits. It is explained by learned Counsel for respondents that letter asking him to report on duty was issued to him inadvertently and that he was ultimately informed by communication dated 10.9.1999 that he could not be reinstated in service. Reliance in support is placed on Supreme Court judgment in "Union v. Rakesh, IV (2001) SLT 36=2001 IIIAD (SC) 534".

(3.) There is no dispute that Ministry of Home Affairs had issued letter dated 27.12.1995 providing for grant of pensionary benefits to those who would resign under Rule 19 after completion of 10 years' service. Whether or not petitioner had resigned pursuant to this is apparent from his application laying claim for grant of pensionary benefits. Had he resigned under the compulsion of his own circumstances he would not have ordinarily claimed pensionary benefits. His application shows that he was conscious of his entitlement to pensionary benefits while resigning. It is not understandable how respondents had treated him a separate category ignoring the recommendation of his Commandant. Their plea that his resignation was unconnected with their policy is rejected in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also not in dispute that respondents had revoked their policy and asked all those who had resigned in the "mistaken belief" of getting pensionary benefits to withdraw their resignation and to report on duty. They had acted upon this and asked petitioner to report on duty by communication dated 15.10.1998. But despite all this they had failed to allow him to join and discharge his duty.