Employees with 10 years of service are entitled to proportionate pension as per Rule 108(b) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 and the Office Memorandum dated 2.4.91.

1. Heard Mr. D. Choudhury and Dr. M.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel for the Accountant General's office; Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned Govt. Advocate; Mr. A. Chetry, learned counsel for the Pension & Public Grievances Department and Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel for the Finance Department.

2. All the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order as the fact situation is similar in all the cases. The only difference in the facts is with regard to the number of years of service of the petitioners. The petitioners in all the cases have worked as employees in the Border Organization of Assam Police as per the Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Scheme (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the PIF Scheme'). The petitioners in all the cases, including the husband of the petitioner in WP(C) 1124/2013, have worked for more than 10 years but less than 20 years in the said organization under the PIF Scheme.

3. The petitioners' case is that after retirement from Defence Service they were selected for being appointed in the Border Organization of Assam Police under the PIF Scheme. The particulars of each of the petitioners are reflected below:

The petitioner in WP(C) 1147/2013 was appointed on 10.12.93 as SI of Police (B) and retired on 30.6.2012.

The husband of the petitioner in WP(C) 1124/2013 was appointed on 10.12.93 as SI of Police (B) and he expired on 17.6.2002.

The petitioner in WP(C) 4106/2013 was appointed in May, 2001 as Constable (B) and retired on 31.7.2013.

The petitioner in WP(C) 4564/2013 was appointed on 27.5.94 as Constable (B) and he retired on 31.12.2012.

The petitioner in WP(C) 4567/2013 was appointed on 2.2.93 as Constable (B) and after being promoted as SI (B) on 1.10.2000, he retired on 31.3.2010.

The petitioner in WP(C) 4576/2013 was appointed on 6.6.94 as Constable (B) and retired on 30.9.2000.

The petitioner in WP(C) 4577/2013 was appointed on 14.10.93 as Head Constable (B) and after being promoted as SI(B) on 14.10.2000, he retired on 19.10.2012.

The petitioner in WP(C) 4580/2013 was appointed on 5.10.93 as Head Constable (B) and retired on 31.12.2012.

The petitioner in WP(C) 2560/2013 was appointed on 27.4.94 as Constable (B) and retired on 30.11.2010 as Head Constable (B).

4. The case of the petitioners is that after retirement they had applied for pension as per the Rules. However, as they had not completed the mandatory period of 20 years' service, they were denied pension by the respondents. In WP(C) 1124/2013, the petitioner is the wife of the person who had served in the Border Organisation of Assam Police and she has prayed that besides the pension payable as per law, she should also be given the family pension.

5. The Govt. of India had formulated the Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Scheme (PIF Scheme) for Assam for strengthening the Assam Governmental machinery for detection and deportation of foreigners in the year 1960. This scheme was extended from time to time. In the year 1987, the Govt. of India created additional scheme for the existing PIF Scheme. It was under this PIF Scheme that the petitioners had been recruited. While some of the petitioners were recruited in the time scale of pay, the others were recruited in a fixed pay.

6. The Inspector General of Police Border, Assam issued a Circular on 17.3.95 laying down procedures for appointment/continuance of ex-servicemen in the Additional PIF Scheme whereby conditions for yearly renewable contract of service to the staff of Additional PIF Scheme had been imposed. This Circular dated 17.3.95 was challenged by way of two writ petitions before this Court and a Single Bench of this Court had allowed the writ petitions clarifying that there should not be any break in service of the persons recruited into the scheme and they would continue as long as the scheme was in existence. The Single Bench also observed that the persons recruited under the Additional PIF Sch