ARVIND KUMAR BHATIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 13/9/2002, 22/2/2016 and 11/2/2017 and has sought reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

(2.) It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner was enrolled in Border Security Force on 13/10/2001 as Cook and on 14/5/2002 the resignation of the petitioner from service was accepted by the Commandant w.e.f. 17/5/2002 under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 ('the Rules, 1969') without any pensionary benefits. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner sought withdrawal of the resignation and reinstatement, which prayer of the petitioner was rejected on 13/9/2002 (Annex.3). The petitioner thereafter, in the year 2015 again sought reinstatement in service, which representation was rejected by the Assistant Commandant, Jammu on 22/2/2016 (Annex.4) inter alia indicating that as the petitioner has submitted the application for reinstatement in service after a lapse of more than 13 years from the date of resignation from service, the same was rejected as time barred and devoid of merit. Further application made in this regard was again rejected on 11/2/2017.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that rejection of petitioner's application seeking reinstatement by indicating that the petitioner had submitted application for reinstatement in service after a lapse of more than 13 years in terms of Rule 26(4) (iii) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 ('the Rules, 1972') is baseless inasmuch as from the order Annex.3 it is apparent that the petitioner had moved the application well within time as prescribed in this regard and, therefore, the order dated 22/2/2016 being factually incorrect, the respondents be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner.