JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 29th day of February, 2024)

The petitioner commenced his service under the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Lance Naik/Senior Constable on 15/10/1970. As per Ext.P1 in Column No.3, it was stated that he resigned from service on 07/03/1983 though the certificate shows that this is a certificate of discharge. Thereafter the petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation before the Hon’ble Prime Minister for payment of pension as he had 12 and half years of service acting as acting CRPF (Personal). The said representation was considered by the 2nd respondent and Ext.P3 letter is issued in the petitioner stating that since the petitioner is having only 12 years of service as per CCS Pension Rules, 1972 is not eligible for pension and other pensionary benefits. Though another representation was filed as Ext.P4, the same has not been taken into consideration. Therefore the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition for the following prayers:

“1. To call for records leading to Exhibit P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same by issuing writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ.

2. To issue a Writ of Mandamus order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to disburse with the minimum pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner with interest for delayed payments in accordance with the CCS Pension Rules.

3. Any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice.

4. To grant the cost of this writ petition (civil).”

2. A statement is filed on behalf of the respondents. The statement clarifies that he has resigned from service at his own will on 15/03/1983 AN after completing 12 years and 5 months of service in CRPF. His resignation tendered was accepted by the competent authority and he was allowed to resign with effect from 15/03/1983 AN under Rule 17 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. As per Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, resignation from a service for a post unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority entitles forfeiture of past service as such no pension is admissible in the case of resignation of service under the CCS Pension Rules of 1972. The petitioner resigned his service admittedly on 15/03/1983 and the application for payment of pension is filed only in 2020 after lapse of more than 14 years.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule

49(2) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, which substituted vide notification GSR No.928(E), dated 21/12/2012.

“In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less that 10 years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him, subject to a minimum of three thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem and maximum of forty-five thousand rupees per mensem.”

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner since he has more than 12 year of service as per Rule 49 (2) is eligible to get pension. The DSGI appearing for the respondent has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. Madhu E.V. and Another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 474 and contented his proposition that the Rule 49 of the CCS Rules only prescribes the procedure for calculation and quantification of pension amount and not minimum qualifying service. Paragraph 14 of judgment reads as follows:

“14. In view of the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar and Raj Kumar v. Union of India, the legal position that emerges is this: Rule 19 of the BSF Rules does not entitle any pensionary benefits on resignation of its personnel. The pensionary benefits are not ordinarily available on resignation under CCS (Pension) Rules since Rule 26 provides for forfeiture of service on resignation. However, by virtue of G.O. dated 27-12-1995 read with Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, the membe