RAM DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of direction to the respondents to release proportionate pension to the petitioner from 1.2.1997 till date alongwith interest @ 12 percent p.a.

(2.) The petitioner was enrolled as a Washerman in the Border Security Force and was allotted regimental No. 794440002. He is asserted to have resigned in pursuance to the instructions dated 27.6.1997 (Annexure P.1). The afore- mentioned instructions contemplate grant of pensionary benefits under Rule 19 of Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (for brevity 'the Rules') even in cases where an employee has resigned under specified conditions. A copy of the resignation letter dated 2.12.1996 has been placed on record as Annexure P.2. However, on 20.10.1998, the petitioner was asked to report back for duty because no pensionary benefits were admissible for the personnel who have resigned under the 1969 Rules. The petitioner was communicated that for reinstatement he has to refund all payments made by the Government to him such as GPF, Gratuity, CGEGIS after he tendered the resignation. The petitioner expressed his inability to repay the amount which was released to him after his resignation in the form of G.P.F., Gratuity, CGEGIS etc. He requested vide his letter dated 1.11.1998 (Annexure P.4) that he may be permitted to join without insisting on the afore-mentioned payments. His request for relaxation from making re-payment of financial dues was rejected and he was reminded by various letters to report back for duty if he was keen. A copy of the letter dated 6.6.1999 (Annexure P.5) shows various letters sent to the petitioner.

(3.) Shri Ravi Badyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the right of the petitioner to earn pension has been defeated on account of change in provisions and their resiling from the promise given to the petitioner for grant of pension. According to the learned counsel in such like cases principle of equitable estoppel would be attracted as the petitioner has changed his position to his detriment after resigning and the financial benefits paid to him have been exhausted which could not be repaid to the respondents in accordance with the directions issued vide letter dated 20.10.1998 (Annexure P.3) and subsequent letters. He has also placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India, 2006 1 JT 49 (Annexure P.7) and has asserted that his case is covered by category (B)(ii) as per the judgement.