Resignation before completing the statutory period of service does not entitle pensionary benefits, and the policy of 'no pay for no work' applies.

( 1 ). As the Facts and the issues arising for my consideration in these writ petitions are similar I propose to dispose of all these these writ petitions by this common judgement/order.

( 2 ). The main grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is against non-payment of the salary for the period between the release of the petitioners from service to the date of rejoining the services by them. In some of these petitions the petitioners have also prayed for an alter native relief claiming for payment of pensionary benefits from the date of their discharge from service. The petitioners while working in the Border Security force submitted their resignation from services under Rule 19 (1) of Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). The respondents accepted the said resignations consequent to which the petitioners were also discharged from service. After being released the petitioners- requested for payment of their pensionary benefits on resignation under Rule 19 of the Rules. The respondents considered the said request of the petitioners and by a communication issued by the respondents intimated each of the petitioners that the pension case of the petitioners relating to resignation under rule 19 (i) of the Rules was decided by the Competent authority. It was further intimated that pursuant to the said decision no pension could be granted to the petitioners as they had served Border Security force for less than 20 years of service.

( 3 ). It was further slated that their period of absence i. e. from the date of their release pursuant to their resignation to the date of their rejoining could be regularised as earned leave or half pay leave as due and that remaining period would be regularised by granting extraordinary leave. It was also mentioned that if they re Join their duty in terms of the aforesaid intimation they would have to refund general provident fund and other dues but they would retain their seniority. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication sent by the respondents the petitioners accepted the aforesaid offer and re Joined their duties, upon which the respondents allowed the petitioners to rejoin duties. But their period of absence was accordingly regularised in terms of the communication dated 24/10/1998, being aggrieved by which the present writ petitions are preferred.

( 4 ). Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents accepted the resignations of the petitioners with the clear stipulation that the pensionary benefits would be paid to them and therefore, when the respondents resiled from the said assurance and directed the petitioners to rejoin duties petitioners are entitled to get full salary and allowances for the period during which they were denied the opportunity to work and that the aforesaid absence could not be attributed as fault of the petitioners.

( 5 ). So far the claim of some of the petitioners for grant of relief for release of pensionary benefits to the petitioners from the date of their discharge from service is concerned, the same now stands decided by the Supreme Court in four Civil Appeals, the lead case of which is titled as Union of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 309. Their lordships of the Supreme Court while disposing of the said appeals observed that on the basis of G. O. a number of persons were granted pensionary benefits even though they had not completed 20 years of service and that for grant of pension the members of the Border Security Force are governed by the ccs (Pension) Rules which nowhere provide that a person who has resigned before completing 20 years of service as provided in Rule 48-A is entitled to pensionary benefits and that rule 19 of the BSF rules also does not make any provision for grant of pensionary benefits. It was further held by the supreme Court that no person can claim any right on the basis of the decision which is de hors the statutory rules nor there can