DIRECTOR GENERAL B S F Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants in both these Writ Appeals are same. The question involved in both these appeals is also the same and hence both these Writ Appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) W. A. No. 279 of 2000 is filed against the judgment in O. P. No. 3295 of 1999. O. P. No. 3295 of 1999 was filed by the respondent in the appeal, who was a Constable in the Border Security Force. He joined service on 10.7.1987 and after 10 years, 2 months and 20 days of service, he tendered his resignation. The resignation was accepted by the second appellant with effect from 30.9.1997, as per Ext. P1 order dated 31.8.1997 under R.19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the B.S.F. Rules') with pensionary benefits. Subsequently, FHQ, Border Security Force, New Delhi intimated that personnel resigned from service before completion of 20 years of qualifying service are not entitled to pensionary benefits and this was communicated to the respondent by letter dated 20.10.1998. Thereafter, the respondent appeared before the second appellant on 2.12.1998 and submitted an application for joining duties, but the same was withdrawn by the respondent on 7.12.1998. The respondent's request for pensionary benefit was turned down by the Pay and Accounts Division of the Border Security Force on the ground that he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service as required under R.48A of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCS (Pension) Rules) to enable him to earn pension. Thereafter, the Original petition was filed by the respondent praying for settlement of his pension immediately and to disburse the same with all retirement benefits.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the Original Petition/appellants herein, it is clearly stated that the respondent herein was governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules and as per R.48A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, pension is eligible only after putting 20 years of qualifying service. Thereafter, the Original Petition was filed by the respondent praying for a direction to settle his pension immediately and disburse the same with all retirement benefits. In the counter affidavit it is clearly stated that the petitioner was governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules and as per R.48A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, pension is eligible only to persons, who had completed 20 years of qualifying service. It was also brought to the notice of the court that under R.26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, on resignation the person forfeits his past service and therefore, the petitioner in the Original Petition is not entitled to any pension. It was also submitted that the respondents did not retire from service as contemplated under R.49(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, but was allowed to resign from service and therefore the above Rule has no application. Learned single Judge held that if the petitioner is allowed to resign with pensionary benefit under R.19 of the BSF Rules, then his claim for pension must be worked out under R.49(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. It is against that the Writ Appeal is filed. According to the appellants, Ext. P1 order was issued under a mistaken impression.