JUDGMENT :

Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. These special appeals are directed against common order dated 7.3.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petitions preferred by the appellants challenging the action of the respondents in denying pension and other post retirement benefits, have been dismissed.

2. For appreciation of the controversy involved in these appeals, the essential facts need to be noticed and for this purpose, the facts of the SAW No. 1355/18, which was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant as lead case, are taken into consideration.

3. The appellant Trilok Singh was appointed as Constable (GD) in Border Security Force (BSF) on 25.11.85. He was promoted on the post of Lance Naik w.e.f. 15.3.93. While posted as Lance Naik in 102 Bn of BSF, the appellant tendered his resignation voluntarily on 5.7.96, which was accepted in conformity with the provisions of Rule 19 of BSF Rules, 1969 (for short "the BSF Rules") w.e.f. 31.10.96.

4. A circular dated 27.12.95 was issued by the DG, BSF (Personnel Director) notifying that Government had agreed that a member of the Force is entitled to get pensionary benefits on resignation under Rule 19 of BSF Rules provided he has put in requisite number of years of service and fulfills all eligibility conditions. The said circular was interpreted by the authorities to mean that any member of the Force could resign with the permission of the competent authority, even before completing qualifying service for pension and would be eligible for pension under Rule 19(1) of the BSF Rules.

5. Relying upon the said circular, number of personnel of BSF resigned under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules. Accordingly, the appellant's resignation was also accepted with pensionary benefits w.e.f. 31.10.96 by the Commandant, 102 Bn BSF. However, under the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short "the Pension Rules"), the personnel who had resigned from service under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules before completion of qualifying service of 20 years was not entitled for grant of pensionary benefits. In this view of the matter, the case of the appellant for pensionary benefits was returned by Pay and Accounts Division, BSF, New Delhi. The appellant was paid the amount of GPF, leave encashment and other admissible benefits.

6. The respondents realising the mistake committed on account of erroneous interpretation of the said circular dated 27.12.95, issued a circular dated 15.1.98 rectifying the mistake. It was clarified that pension is not admissible on resignation under Rule 19 of BSF Rules. The DG, BSF issued yet another circular dated 17.10.98 conveying that all personnel, whose resignations after completion of 10 years of service were accepted with pensionary benefits during 1996, 1997 and 1998 pursuant to circular dated 27.12.95 may be taken back immediately in service treating their period of absence as an Earned Leave/Half Pay Leave (HPL) as due and remaining period of absence as leave without pay as a special case and that such personnel would have to refund the amount of GPF and other dues paid to them, however, they will retain their seniority. It was stipulated in unequivocal terms that member of the Force is not interested to rejoin, he will not be entitled for pension.

7. Pursuant to the circular dated 17.10.98, vide letter dated 22.10.98, the appellant was directed to join the duties immediately. The reminders were also sent to the appellant but he did not choose to rejoin the duty.

8. In the petition filed, appellant averred that he made several attempts from time to time for release of his pension. However, the appellant placed on record a representation dated 10.7.14 alleged to have been sent by him to the State Minister for Home Affairs. The appellant served a notice for demand of justice dated 25.1.16 claiming the pensionary benefits. The notice served by the appellant through his counsel was responded by the Deputy Inspector General, SHQ, BSF, Siliguri vide letter dat