2006 (1) TMI 637 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to pensionary benefits under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules.
2. Validity and interpretation of the G.O./Circular dated 27.12.1995.
3. Impact of the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar and Ors.
4. Re-induction of BSF personnel who resigned under mistaken impression of entitlement to pension.
5. Equitable relief for personnel affected by the misinterpretation of Rule 19.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Pensionary Benefits Under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules:
The judgment clarifies that Rule 19 of the BSF Rules does not grant any right to pension for personnel who have not completed the requisite qualifying service under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (CCS Pension Rules). The Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar explicitly held that entitlement to pension arises only under the CCS Pension Rules and not under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules.

2. Validity and Interpretation of the G.O./Circular Dated 27.12.1995:
The G.O./Circular dated 27.12.1995 was misinterpreted by authorities to mean that BSF personnel could resign and still be eligible for pensionary benefits under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules. This interpretation was based on some High Court judgments and clarifications from the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare. However, the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar clarified that the G.O. did not confer any additional pensionary benefits beyond those provided under the CCS Pension Rules.

3. Impact of the Supreme Court Judgment in Union of India and Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar and Ors.:
The judgment in Rakesh Kumar settled the controversy by stating that BSF personnel resigning under Rule 19 without completing the qualifying service are not entitled to pension under the CCS Pension Rules. This decision led to the cessation of pension payments to personnel who had resigned under the mistaken belief of entitlement to pension.

4. Re-induction of BSF Personnel Who Resigned Under Mistaken Impression of Entitlement to Pension:
The authorities realized their mistake in 1998 and issued a circular on 17.10.1998, recalling personnel who had resigned under the mistaken impression of pension entitlement. Personnel were given the opportunity to rejoin the service, and those who failed to do so were not entitled to any pension. The Supreme Court upheld this approach, stating that there could be no equity in favor of those who did not avail themselves of the opportunity to rejoin.

5. Equitable Relief for Personnel Affected by the Misinterpretation of Rule 19:
The Court identified different categories of affected personnel and provided specific reliefs:

- Category (B)(ii): Personnel who retired after 1996 and were not sanctioned pension must forfeit their pension if they did not report for re-induction.
- Category (B)(i): Personnel who retired in 1996 and were sanctioned pension will be given the option to be re-inducted into service, subject to conditions and refunding the pension amounts drawn.
- Category (B)(i)(b): Personnel who cannot be re-inducted due to age, medical unfitness, or inability to refund pension amounts will cease to receive pension, but no recovery of already paid pension will be made.
- Category (A): Personnel who resigned before the circular dated 27.12.1995 and were granted pension for special reasons will not be required to refund the pension amounts already drawn, and their pension will not be stopped.

The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to provide these equitable reliefs to ensure no injustice was caused, even while upholding the law declared in Rakesh Kumar. The petitions were dismissed subject to these limited reliefs.