(1.) THE petitioner in the present case initially joined the Agriculture Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh on 6.12.1961. Thereafter, he was selected in the Indian Army and joined as a Commissioned Officer on 19.1.1964. In the year 1965, the Border Security Force Act (for short: BSF) was promulgated and the BSF was set up. The petitioner was discharged on 9.4.1970 and thereafter joined BSF as Assistant Commandant on 29.7.1970. At the relevant time, the BSF had not framed its own rules and it was governed by the Central Reserve Police Force (for short: CRPF), Rules.
(2.) RULE 43 of the said rules provided that the age of superannuation of an officer of the BSF who reaches the rank of Commandant was 55 years and those who were promoted above this rank superannuated at the age of 58 years. Rule 102 of the rules provided that if the rules were silent, the condition of service would be same as applicable to other permanent employees of the Government.
(3.) THE petitioner filed the present petition claiming that since the age of retirement of BSF officials was only 55 years as against the normal age of 58 years in regular government service, the maximum pension should be paid on completion of 30 years service instead of 33 years as required under the Pension Rules. The case of the petitioner was based on various judgments delivered by the High Court of Delhi and High Court of Jammu & Kashmir. In these judgments, the said Courts relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Raghu Nandan Lal Chaudhary and others v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 2125 and held that employees of the BSF retiring at the age of 55 years would be entitled to receive full pension on completion of 30 years of service. However, during the pendency of the present petition, the apex Court settled the law in this regard in Union of India and another v. Satish Kumar (2006) 1 SCC 360, in which the Court observed that the decision in Raghu Nandan's case (supra) did not lay down any proposition of law and held as follows:-