The main legal point established in the judgment is that resignation and retirement have different implications in terms of entitlement to pension benefits, and the Government of India's letter dated 27.12.1995 did not confer additional pensionary benefits to BSF employees who resigned before completing the requisite qualifying service under the CCS (Pension) Rules.

The question involved in this appeal is whether a member of Border Security Force (in short, BSF), who has resigned from his post after serving for 10 or more years but less than 20 years, is entitled to pension/pensionary benefits under the relevant provisions of Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called the BSF Rules) or the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the CCS (Pension) Rules)?

2. The aforesaid question has arisen under the following facts and circumstances: -

Respondent-writ petitioner L/Nk. Bhadreswar Hira was enrolled in the BSF as a Constable on 20.2.1982. After completion of 15 years 9 months and 10 days of service, he submitted his resignation before the competent authority for acceptance on the ground of domestic problems. He was interviewed by the Commandant 193 Bn BSF. The resignation of the writ petitioner (now respondent) was accepted by the competent authority by an order dated 16.9.97 and he was struck off from the strength of the BSF w.e.f. 30.11.1997. By the said order resignation of the writ petitioner and of one V. Arjunan, another member of the BSF was accepted. The order of acceptance of resignation reads as under: -

"Order: Resignation submitted by the following personnel of this Unit due to their domestic problems are hereby accepted with effect from date as mentioned against each under R-19 of BSF Rule, 1969 with pensionary benefits:-

1. No. 82711045 L/NK ... 30.11.97 (AN)

2. No. 87009528 CT... 31.10.97(AN) V. Arjunan 02. They will SOS from this Unit on the date of their resignation from service.

No. Estt/178/193/97/16256 dated the 16th Sept. 97

Sd/- XXX 16.9.97

(Paranjit Singh) Commandant 193 Bn BSF

Distribution:

1. No. 827111045 L/NK

B. Hira.

2. No. 87009528 CT V. Arjunan - You are hereby directed to report main office of the unit alongwith three copies of passport size photograph (husband & wife) Bank A/C number from where you intent to draw pension alongwith bank code number (national bank alongwith full address of bank) for preparation of pension paper. Two copies of passport size photograph (civil dress) may also be submitted to this office for preparation of discharge book."

However, despite his resignation having been accepted with pensionary benefits, his pension/pensionary benefits were not released, which led him to file W.P.(C) No. 5308 of 1999 in this Court. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 20.3.2001, allowed the writ petition relying on an earlier Single Judge judgment in Siraj AH (Md)-Vs-Union of India and others (1999(2) GLT 519) wherein the same question had arisen. The pension was refused to Siraj AH on the ground that the writ petitioner Siraj Ali had not completed the minimum qualifying service. The learned Single Judge in Siraj Ali's case held that since the petitioner's resignation had been accepted with all pensionary benefits and the same was in conformity with the letter of the Director General of Border Security Force dated 27.12.1995, the writ petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 49(2)(b) of the BSF Rules, 1969 and the subsequent letter dated 16.5.98 could not be given retrospective effect. It may be observed here that the Himachal Pradesh High Court had taken a similar view in Civil Writ Petition No. 761/98 decided on 20.4.99 against which the Union of India's appeal was pending before the Apex Court. During the course of arguments in WP(C) 5308/99 this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, but the learned Judge was of the view that since there was no stay regarding the operation of the judgment and order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, he would rather follow the earlier judgment of this Court in Siraj Ali's case (supra). The matter has been made simpler for us, inasmuch as, the appeal against the Himachal Pradesh High Court as also an appeal against the similar judgme