UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANDEEP PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Central Government is before us challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge granting pension to the writ petitioner under Rule 49 (2) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Pension Rules ').

(2.) On facts, it has to be noticed that the petitioner was retired under Rule 26 of the Border Security Force (BSF) Rules, 1969. The writ petition was filed claiming pension under the Pension Rules. While that was pending on 07.08.2014, by Ext. P7 order, the petitioner was granted pension under Rule 40(1) of the Pension Rules.

(3.) Sri. T.V. Vinu, learned Central Government Standing Counsel argues that on compulsory retirement, pension has to be calculated under Rule 40 and not under Rule 49 of the Pension Rules. It is also argued that the petitioner had filed the writ petition without specifying the Rule under which he claimed pension. When the writ petition was pending, the petitioner was granted pension as per Ext. P7, which is not challenged in the writ petition. In any event, it is contended that the BSF Rules does not provide for pension and Rule 49 of the Pension Rules provide only pension for persons who retired in accordance with the Pension Rules. The retirement of the respondent was a compulsory retirement and hence, pension can only be sanctioned under Rule 40; which rule does not specify the grant to be only in cases where the retirement is under the Pension Rules. It is also urged that the transitory provision at Rule 182 clearly indicates the overriding effect of the BSF Rules. The retirement being in accordance with the BSF Rules, specifically Rule 26, the same is deemed to be a compulsory retirement.