SHIV SINGH SAMBYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined Border Security Force in September, 1978. However, after serving for a period of 10 years, he submitted his resignation which was accepted w. e. f. 26 -7 -1989. He had by then completed 10 years 10 months and 17 days service in the force. He subsequently applied for grant of pension which the respondents refused on the ground that he did not have qualified service to make him entitled to pension. The only grievance of the petitioner is that although his resignation was accepted under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules. Yet he is being denied the pension though the same is admissible to all those who are permitted to resign under Rule 19 of the said Rules.

(2.) THE respondents have justified the refusal to pay pension on the ground that the minimum qualifying service for grant of pension is 20 years under C. C. S Pension Rules of 1972 and since the petitioner had served only for less than 11 years, therefore, he was not found eligible for pension.

(3.) MR . Rakesh Sharma, appearing for the petitioner argued that qualifying service for pension is 10 years and not 20 years. In support of this he relies on the JUDGMENT of Delhi High Court in civil writ petition No. 1849 of 1984 titled Rai Singh V/s Union of India decided by a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi on 15 -10 -1984 and civil Rule No. 10913 (w)/81 titled Nani Ranjan Dass V/s Director General, Border Security Force and others, decided by the High Court of Calcutta on 28 -7 -1987, photocopies of which have been produced.