DAYAWATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have gone through the case records of this case. The learned Single Judge, whose order is under challenge in this appeal, decided the writ petition in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Rakesh kumar reported as (2001) 4 SCC 309. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of Rules 48, 48a and 49 of the Central Civil services (Pension) Rules, 1972, in paragraph 16 has observed as follows:

(2.) IN the light of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, the learned single Judge held that the case in hand is fully covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme court.

(3.) ON going through the records we also find that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) has held that on the basis of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, a member of the BSF, who has resigned from his post after completing more than 10 years of qualifying service but less than 20 years would not be eligible to get pensionary benefit. The husband of the appellant had about 13 years of service to his credit. A similar case of a commandant of Indian Coast Guard having 13 years of service to his credit was subject matter of a writ petition being WP (C) No. 5651/2000 titled Comdt. Rajeev ranjan (Retd.) v. Union of India and others (disposed of on 12th October, 2004), before one of the Division Benches of this Court consisting of Dr. Mukundakam sharma and Gita Mittal, JJ. By judgment dated 12th October, 2004, the said writ petition filed by the Coast Guard employee was dismissed relying on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court.