PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Enrolled as a Constable (GD) with BSF on 11.9.1979, petitioner was re-mustered as Clerk and earned promotion to the rank of ASI (Clerk) on 27.3.1986. He earned further promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector (Clerk) on 14.2.1996.

2. On 27.12.1995, BSF issued an office memorandum informing that BSF personnel who have completed 10 years service may seek resignation; expressly informing that service pension under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules 1969 would be paid.

3. Petitioner resigned from service pursuant to the said office memorandum and was sanctioned service pension with effect from 1.4.1996, which was suddenly stopped in July 2001, on the stand taken by BSF that having not completed 20 years service no pension could be paid since Rule 49 of the CCS Pension Rules 192 stipulated 20 years as the minimum qualifying service.

4. Large number of BSF personnel who had resigned pursuant to the office memorandum dated 27.12.1995, on an express assurance that pension would be paid, litigated when pension was abruptly stopped after a few years. Matter was finally decided by the Supreme Court on 4.1.2006; decision being reported as 2006 SCC (L &S) 216 Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. UOI & Anr; directing that all those who had resigned pursuant to the office memorandum dated 27.12.1995 would be entitled to be reinstated with seniority protected. It was directed that the department would regularize the period of absence.

5. Realizing that in the interregnum, promotions had been effected, an office order was issued directing that wherever juniors have been promoted, those who have been re-inducted in service, may be detailed to undergo respective PP course and DP course, and if they qualify, they should be promoted with effect from the date of qualifying at the examination but their inter-se seniority in the promoted rank be reckoned with effect from the date of promotion of their juniors. In other words, effect was to grant pay from the date the officers assumed charge of the promotional post, but seniority to be reckoned with reference to the date persons junior were promoted.

6. Petitioner rejoined duty on 25.5.2006 after the Supreme Court pronounced the verdict and in respect of which rejoining, an office order dated 2.7.2007 was issued.

7. In between, persons junior to the petitioner had been promoted to the rank of Inspector with effect from 11.5.2004. Therefore, petitioner submitted a representation that he be promoted as Inspector and seniority assigned to him with effect from the date persons junior to him were promoted. It may be noted here that as averred by the petitioner in para 14 of the writ petition, no mandatory course was prescribed for promotion to the rank of Inspector (Clerk) from the rank of Sub-Inspector (Clerk) when promotions were effected on 11th May 2004. As per the petitioner it was only with effect from 9.10.2006, an office basic management course, to be undertaken was prescribed, before Sub-Inspector (Clerk) could earn promotion to the post of Inspector, which assertion of fact has not been denied by the respondents while responding to the averments made in para 14 of the writ petition.

8. Petitioner’s representation dated 28.12.2008 went unheeded.

9. But before that, certain events which are relevant took place and hence we note the same. Petitioner was sanctioned 60 days earned leave with effect from 20.3.2008 to 22.5.2008. While on leave, the Unit Medical Officer placed petitioner in low medical category for a period of 12 weeks with effect from 4.5.2008. The petitioner alleges that the Unit Medical Officer acted out of malice inasmuch as petitioner had a verbal altercation with him. Petitioner asserts that the Unit Medical Officer could not have placed the petitioner in low medical category, which plea of the petitioner has been refuted by the respondents who have made good their assertions with reference to the general medical condition of the petitioner which shows that prior to, during t