TULA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI H. N. Upadhyaya, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N. P. Mittal, counsel for the respondents. Heard counsel. The facts which are not disputed are few but crucial. The right which is claimed to be enforced in this matter is also crucial to petitioner's life and livelihood who is now out of employment, after having rendered services for 17 years, 4 months and 10 days in the Border Secutiry Force.

(2.) THE admitted position on facts is also that w. e. f. 19-11-1983, his resignation was accepted as per Annexure R-3. What is projected in annexure P/1, is that his date of enrolment in the Force is on 27-6-1967 and the date of "discharge" 19-11-1983, is also shown with his enrolment number and the fact that he was employed as Cook during the course of service is also manifested on the face of Annexure P/1. It is also shown therein that he was about 38 years' old when he was "discharged". The grievance in this petition is that the petitioner has not been granted any pension while on the face of Annexure P/1 it appears the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 were made applicable to him.

(3.) SHRI Mittal, who appears for the respondents, has argued vehemently against any relief to be granted to the petitioner in this case. The first contention which learned counsel has urged is that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter as this matter lies squarely within the jurisidcition of Administrative tribunal to decide any question pertaining to the service condition of the petitioner. However, Shri Mittal concedes that that contention is rested on article 309 of the Constitution and he has made the contention on the footing that the petitioner has to be regarded as a person holding a "civil post". What counsel has, on the other hand candidly conceded, however, is that there is special law, namely. Border Security Force Act, 1968 and the rules framed thereunder, which is applicable to the petitioner's case. In that view of the matter we do not think if we can accept Shri Mittal's preliminary objection to this matter being heard by us and that objection is rejected.