NARPAT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to grant applicable pension, gratuity and other post retirement and other benefits to the petitioner, restore the Pension Payment Order from the date it was stopped and quash the impugned order dtd. 17/8/2001 (Annex. 2) for the stoppage of pension issued by the respondent BSF and decide the case of the petitioner in terms of the larger Bench judgment in DTC v. Balwan Singh: (2019) 18 SCC 126.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this petition on 13/8/2021 with the averments that on completion of more than 10 years of satisfactory qualifying service, owing to some person reasons, the petitioner, who was serving as Lance Naik with BSF, took voluntary retirement on 30/8/1996. Pursuant to the retirement accorded to the petitioner, the PPO was issued on 7/10/1996. However, by order dtd. 17/8/2001 by indicating that pension to the petitioner has been stopped forthwith as the petitioner had resigned from service under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules before completing 20 years of service and he is not entitled for pensionary benefits as decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dtd. 30/3/2001 in Civil Appeal No. 6166/1999 and the petitioner was required to contact Director General, BSF for clarification, if any. It appears from the record that on 24/2/2017 i.e. after about 16 years from the date of the order dtd. 17/8/2001 (Annex. 2), the petitioner got issued a notice to the respondents claiming to have made representations in the past requiring the respondents to grant him pension and all applicable pensionary benefits or in the alternative reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

(3.) Submissions have been made that action of the respondents in denying pension to the petitioner with reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is not justified.