JOSE Vs. BORDER SECURITY FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these Original Petitions were constables in Border Security Force. THEy resigned from the service. In Ext. P-1 the Commandant accepted the resignations under R. 19 of the B. S. F. Rules, 1969 with pensionary benefits at his own request on extreme compassionate grounds. Now the respondents have denied the pensionary benefits to the petitioners. In Ext. P-2 (O. P. NO. 2920/99) the claim for pensionary benefits were found to be inadmissible for persons who resigned.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondents the stand taken is as follows: The petitioners are governed by C. C. S. (Pension)Rules and as per R. 48 (A) of the above rules pension is admissible only to persons who completed 20 years of qualifying service. Moreover, under R. 26 of the C. C. S. (Pension) Rules on resignation the person forfeits his past service. Therefore, it was submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any pension. IN view of these conflicting position taken in the Original Petitions it is necessary to examine the relevant rules in this matter. R. 19oftheb. S. F. Rules,1969 reads as follows: "19. Resignation:- (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the special circumstances of any case, permit any officer of the Force to resign from the Force before the 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: Provided that while granting such permission the government may, (1) require the officer to refund to the Government such amount as would constitute the cost of training given to that officer; or (ii) make such reduction in the pension of other retirement benefits of the officer if so eligible as that government may consider to be just and proper in the circumstances. (2) The Central Government may accept the resignation under sub-r. (1) with effect from such date as it may consider expedient: Provided that it shall not be later than three months from the date of receipt of such resignation," This rule is quite different from R. 26 of the c. C. S. (Pension) Rules. R. 26 stipulates that resignation forfeits the past service unless allowed to be withdrawn in public interest. R. 40 (2) (b) of the C. C. S. (Pension) Rules reads as follows: " (b) in the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty-three years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than rupees sixty per mensem;"

(3.) SO when the BSF Rules make C. C. S. (Pension) Rules applicable to persons like the petitioners, it must be understood in the light of the pro visions contained in the B S F. Rules. If the petitioners are allowed to resign with pensionary benefits under R. 19 of the BSF Rules, then the petitioners' claim for pension must be worked out under R. 49 (2) (b) of the c. C. S. (Pension) Rules. Therefore, R. 49 (2) (b) of the C. C. S. (Pension) Rules cannot be narrowly interpreted so as to deny the pensionary benefits to the petitioners who were allowed to resign with pensionary benefits as per Ext. P-1 orders. If the argument of the learned Additional Central Government standing counsel is accepted, persons who are allowed to retire under the c. C. S. (Pension) Rules alone will be entitled to pension. That cannot be the case. If C. C. S. (Pension) Rules are made applicable to the BSF personnel under r. 182 of the B. S. F. Rules, it may not be said that persons who retire under the c. C. S. (Pension) Rules alone are entitled to get the benefit of R. 49 (2) (b) of the Rules. Such interpretation will work out injustice to a large number of persons who were governed by other Rules or enactments, but to whom the c. C. S. (Pension) Rules are specifically made applicable.