ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to grant applicable pension, gratuity and other post retirement and other benefits to the petitioner, restore the Pension Payment Order from the date it was stopped and quash the impugned order dated 17/8/2001 (Annex.2) for the stoppage of pension issued by the respondent BSF and decide the case of the petitioner in terms of the larger Bench judgment in DTC vs. Balwan Singh : (2019) 18 SCC 126.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition on 13/8/2021 with the averments that on completion of more than 10 years of satisfactory qualifying service, owing to some person reasons, the petitioner, who was serving as Lance Naik with BSF, took voluntary retirement on 30/8/1996. Pursuant to the retirement accorded to the petitioner, the PPO was issued on 7/10/1996. However, by order dated 17/8/2001 by indicating that pension to the petitioner has been stopped forthwith as the petitioner had resigned from service under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules before completing 20 years of service and he is not entitled for pensionary benefits as decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 30/3/2001 in Civil Appeal No. 6166/1999 and the petitioner was required to contact Director General, BSF for clarification, if any. It appears from the record that on 24/2/2017 i.e. after about 16 years from the date of the order dated 17/8/2001 (Annex.2), the petitioner got issued a notice to the respondents claiming to have made representations in the past requiring the respondents to grant him pension and all applicable pensionary benefits or in the alternative reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

3. Submissions have been made that action of the respondents in denying pension to the petitioner with reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court is not justified.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that the determination made by Hon’ble Supreme Court itself is not correct and, therefore, in terms of provisions of BSF Act and applicable Rules, the petitioner is entitled for grant of pension and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside with all consequential benefits.

5. Strong reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of DTC (Supra).

6. Emphasis was also laid that before passing the order (Annex.2), the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and on that count also the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents inter alia indicating that the controversy involved in the present case is no more res integra as the same has already been adjudicated by Division Bench in Hetram vs. Union of India & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1807/2018 and other connected matters decided on 24/9/2019, whereby, the Division Bench taking into consideration the position of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rakesh Kumar : AIR 2001 SC 1877, Raj Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. : (2006) 1 SCC 737 & Union of India vs. Madhu E.V. & Anr. : AIR 2012 SC 4806 came to the conclusion that no direction can be issued by the Court extending pensionary benefits to the appellants de hors the Rules, which already stood interpreted by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

8. Further submissions have been made that the petitioner was erroneously granted pensionary benefits under the provisions of Rule 19 of the BSF Rules and after the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6166/99, 2121/2000 and 1491/2001 (UOI vs. Rakesh Kumar etc.) the pension was stopped and a detailed communication dated 31/10/2021 (Annex.R/2) was sent to the petitioner.

9. It was denied that the petitioner sent any formal or informal request/representation to the competent authority and that pursuant to the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) the petitioner was accorded sufficient opportunities to re-join the duties b