RAJDHAR SINGH BAGHEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question raised in the present petition is whether in view of the resignation submitted by the original petitioner, he would be entitled to grant of pensionary benefit or not. Since now the original petitioner has died during the pendency of this petition and by order of this Court, the wife of the petitioner has been substituted as legal representative, the rights are to be considered for grant of family pension as well.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY the original petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 13.12.1971 in the establishment of Border Security Force (herein after referred to as 'B.S.F.'). The services of the original petitioner were governed by the B.S.F. Rules, 1969 (herein after 'Rules' for short). It is contended by the original petitioner that as per the Rules, the petitioner submitted an application for resignation from the post on account of his family problems. The original petitioner specifically reserved his right to get the pension etc. under the Rules. However, the resignation of the petitioner was simply accepted on 28.06.1983 and the original petitioner was discharged. Since the part of request made by the original petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits was not considered, though specifically provided under Rule 19 of the Rules, he filed a representation. The said representation was not being considered, therefore, he sent a legal notice. The competent authority considered the representation of the petitioner and referred the same to the higher authorities. The Director General in the Headquarter of B.S.F. considered such matter, directed for review the order vide his memo dated 27 th December, 1995, according to which an order was issued on 13th December, 1996 directing that the original petitioner is deemed to have resigned from the post w.e.f. 01.04.1983 (FN) with admissible pensionary benefits under Rule 19 of the Rules. A letter was issued to the original petitioner in this respect. He was asked to sign the relevant forms for the purposes of pension vide memo dated 11th February, 1997, which were sent immediately. However, even after sending the information, no action was taken for grant of pension to the petitioner, therefore, this writ petition was filed.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.