AB KHALIQ GANAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , as per the averments made in the petition, was serving in Border Security Force. He appears to have sought retirement from the Force in terms of Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules and, accordingly, was retired with effect from 2nd June, 1979. The respondents appear to have processed his pension case which was, in fact, sanctioned in his favour. Right from the date of his retirement from the Force, he has been getting the pension from Pulwama Treasury. The record further reveals that in pursuance of communication dated 3.4.2002, addressed by Senior Accounts Officer, Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Government of India, to the Treasury Officer, Pulwama, the payment of pension to the petitioner has been stopped. In this petition a prayer is made for quashing the aforesaid communication with direction to the respondents to release his pensionery benefits.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Anil Bhan, Sr. CGSC, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that those of the B.S.F. personnel, who were retired from the service of the Force under Rule 19 of the B.S.F. Rules and do not have the qualifying service of 20 years are not entitled to pension. He submitted that the decision to stop pension to all such retired B.S.F. personnel was taken pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar and others, Civil Appeal No. 6166/99 and that a similar issue was also involved in a batch of writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, the lead case being M.G. Hosmatch v. Union of India & others, Writ petition Nos. 41828, 41829, 41830, 41831 and 42057/2001 decided by that Court on 4.12.2001. Mr. Bhan has also produced a photocopy of the decision of the Karnataka High Court rendered in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions. Since the matter has already been dealt with and decided by the Apex Court, it would be appropriate to reproduce hereunder the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, in which the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar and others (supra) has been quoted as it clinches the whole controversy involved in the present petition. The judgment is extracted below: "1. The facts of these cases and grounds raised are same/similar and hence a common order is passed in these petitions. 2. Petitioners were employed by Director General of Border Security Forces attached to Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. Consequent upon their cessation of relationship with respondent 2, they were paid gratuity but pension was not settled. Petitioners were obliged to approach this Court and in terms of the order of this Court they are being granted pension by the respondent. Petitioners state that they have been paid pension right upto 1.8.01. In the month of September, 2001 they came to know about stoppage of pension in terms of annexure C order dated 20.8.01; Same orders are issued to other petitioners as well. All these petitioners challenge the validity of these annexures in these petitions.

(3.) HEARD Sri M. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.