IMPORTANT POINT
Members of BSF who have resigned from their posts after serving for ten or more years but less than 20 years of service are not entitled to pension/pensionary benefits under relevant provisions of the BSF Act or the BSF Rules or the CCS (Pension) Rules.

Headnote:Border Security Force Act, 1968 -Section 8-Registration and withdrawal from the post-The Border Security Force Rules, 1969-Rule 19-Resignation-Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972-Rule 49-Amount of Pension-Members of BSF who have resigned from their posts after serving 10 or more years of service but less than 20 years of service-Claiming Pension/pensionary benefits under the relevant provisions of BSF Act, the BSF Rules and the CCS (Pension) Rules in view G.O. dated 17.12.95 -High Court allowing-Appeals against to Supreme Court-Whether such members of BSF are entitled to Pension/Pensionary benefits in view of said G.O.? (No)-High court reversed-Appeals allowed.
       Held : On the basis of Rule 49 member of BSF who has resigned from his post after completing more than 10 years of qualifying service but less than 20 years would not be eligible to get pensionary benefit. There is no other provision in the CCS (Pension) Rules giving such benefit to such government servants. (Para 16)
       Held also the G.O. does not confer any additional benefit. Even the specific order which is quoted above in favour of Naik Rakesh Kumar, the authority has stated that he would get pensionary benefits as admissible under the Rules. Under the Rules, he is not entitled to get such benefits. (Para 20)
       Held further by erroneous interpretation of the rules if pensionary benefits are granted to someone it would not mean that the said mistake should be perpetuated by direction of the Court. As a normal rule, pensionary benefits are granted to a government servant who is required to retire on his attaining the age of compulsory retirement except in those cases where there are special provisions. (Para 21)
       Held Consequently : In the result, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that on the basis of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules or on the basis of G.O., the respondents who have retired after completing qualifying service of 10 years but before completing qualifying service of 20 years by voluntary retirement, are entitled to get pensionary benefits. Respondents who were permitted to resign from service under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules before the attainment of the age of retirement or before putting such number of years of service, as may be necessary under the Rules, to be eligible for retirement are not entitled to get any pension under any of the provisions under CCS (Pension) Rules. Rule 49 only prescribes the procedure for calculation and quantification of pension amount. The G.O. dated 27.12.1995 does not confer any additional right of pension on the BSF employees. (Para 22)
       Held finally : Hence, the aforesaid appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 16644-45 of 1999.

2. The question involved in these appeals is-whether members of BSF who have resigned from their posts after serving for ten or more years but less than 20 years are entitled to pension/pensionary benefits under the relevant provisions of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the BSF Act") and the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the BSF Rules") or the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the CCS (Pension) Rules")?

3. Brief facts of Civil Appeal No. 6166 of 1991 are that - respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No. 761 of 1998 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh praying for writ directing the appellants to forthwith release the pension due to the respondent w.e.f. 1st March, 1994 and for release of past arrears of pension with interest. It is the case of the respondent that he joined the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as BSF ) as a constable on 15.1.1981 and continued to serve till he submitted his resignation on 11.2.1994, after rendering 12 years and 8 months of service. His resignation was accepted on 1.3.1994 under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules.

4. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs issued G.O. dated 27th December, 1995 conveying its decision to the Directorate General, B.S.F. (Personnel) in the matter of admissibility of pensionary benefits on acceptance of resignation under Rule 19 of the Rules. The G.O. was passed to finalise the claims made by number of Ex. BSF personnel for getting the pensionary benefits on acceptance of their resignation under Rule 19. On the basis of the aforesaid G.O., respondent represented to the Inspector General BSF on 2nd April, 1996 for grant of pensionary benefits. Finally, after receipt of legal notice under Section 80 of CPC, the competent authority passed the following order No. 3563/(PF.RK)/97-Est.II/42328 on 3.5.1997:-

"In partial modification of this office order No. 3411/Estt.-II/94/239 dated 28th Feb. 1994 and as approved by Competent Authority, No. 810050310 Ex-Naik Rakesh Kumar of I of A, BSF Academy Tekanpur is hereby allowed full pensionary benefits as admissible under rules consequent upon his resignation from BSF service, which was accepted w.e.f. 1st March, 1994 (FN) Rule 19 of BSF Rules."

(Emphasis added)

5. However, as the pension was not released the respondent was required to approach the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition and directed the competent authority to quantify the pensionary benefits which the respondent was entitled to from the date of his retirement i.e. 1.3.1994. That order is challenged in this appeal.

6. Similar directions are issued on 22nd July, 1999 by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 783 of 1998 which are challenged in Civil Appeal No. 2121 of 2000.

7. In Civil Appeal No. 2491-92 of 2001 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 16644-45, it is the case of respondent P.K. Surendran Nair that he was enrolled in BSF in May, 1970. He resigned from the service and his resignation was accepted with effect from 24.1.1981 after completing more than 10-years of service. At that time pensionary benefits were not granted to him. He submitted representation for grant of pension. By order dated 19.2.1997, competent authority sanctioned full pensionary benefits as admissible under the rules w.e.f. 24.1.1981. As the pensionary benefits were not released in favour of the respondent he approached the High Court of Kerala by filing OP No. 17228 of 1998 praying for a direction to the appellants to disburse pensionary benefits. The High Court by interim order dated 15.10.1998 directed the appellants to disburse pensionary benefits to the respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. That order was challenged in W.A. No. 2648 of 1998. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 4.3.1999, the Division Bench dismissed the writ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 617

IMPORTANT POINTMembers of BSF who have resigned from their posts after serving for ten or more years but less than 20 years of service are not entitled to pension/pensionary benefits under relevant provisions of the BSF Act or the BSF Rules or the CCS (Pension) Rules.

IMPORTANT POINT
Members of BSF who have resigned from their posts after serving for ten or more years but less than 20 years of service are not entitled to pension/pensionary benefits under relevant provisions of the BSF Act or the BSF Rules or the CCS (Pension) Rules.