Pension entitlement is protected under law for personnel with over ten years of service, regardless of subsequent resignations, provided statutory rules for retirement were adhered to.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to restore the Pension Payment Order No.240559609390/166071 dated 08.08.1996 issued by Central Pension Accounting Office, Govt. of India , New Delhi forthwith, along with arrears accruing from the date of its discontinuation i.e order No.CPAO/A-III/2001-2002/BSF/Vol-2/P-2/ dated 23.08.2001 issued by the Central Pension Accounting Office, Govt. of India, New Delhi, along with all consequential benefits.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Border Security Force (BSF) on 14.07.1985 as a Constable and, after rendering over a decade of meritorious and unblemished service, rose to the rank of Lance Naik. His request for voluntary retirement was duly accepted on 31.03.1996 under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, framed under the BSF Act, 1968, with entitlement to full pensionary benefits, and a discharge certificate was accordingly issued. Tragically, shortly thereafter, on 14.04.1996, the petitioner suffered a grievous accident resulting in amputation of his right hand and leg, rendering him 100% permanently disabled. Pursuant thereto, pension was initially sanctioned vide Pension Payment Order No.240559609390 dated 08.08.1996; however, it was abruptly discontinued after nearly four years i.e. vide order No.CPAO/A-III/2001-2002/BSF/Vol-2/P- 2/ dated 23.08.2001, on the pretext of a Supreme Court judgment dated 30.03.2001 in SLP No. 6166/1999, to which the petitioner was neither a party nor a beneficiary. Despite repeated representations seeking restoration of his pension or permission to rejoin service to complete any shortfall in qualifying service, the petitioner was declared medically unfit. The abrupt cessation of pension without notice, coupled with denial of gratuity and CGHS medical benefits, caused grave financial hardship and violated the principles of natural justice as well as his right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence the instant Writ Petition.

2.1. It is recorded that the petitioner’s voluntary retirement was accepted under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (framed under the Border Security Force Act, 1968); the request was allowed in “special circumstances” and the discharge certificate on record records that pensionary benefits were sanctioned at the time of retirement (Annexure–1).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned action of the respondents, submits that the denial and subsequent forfeiture of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, who was permitted to retire under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and devoid of statutory sanction. It is urged that there exists no provision under the BSF Rules or the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules authorizing forfeiture or denial of pension to a person who has voluntarily retired under the rules. The action of the respondents, therefore, stands in direct violation of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3.1. It is contended that the term pension, as defined under Article 366(17) of the Constitution of India, encompasses any periodical payment, contributory or otherwise, payable in consideration of past service and includes gratuity and provident fund returns. Pension, being a deferred wage and a vested right, is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace, but a constitutionally protected property right, as held in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India , (1983) 1 SCC 305 , wherein a Constitution Bench unequivocally declared that pension constitutes a social welfare measure and deferred compensation for past service rendered, creating a vested right in the employee.

3.2. Counsel further submits that the petitioner’s voluntary retirement under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules was duly accepted with full pensionary benefits, and his service of over ten years constitutes