Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (1) TMI 637

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with their views that a member of the force is entitled to get pensionary benefits on resignation under Rule 19 of the said Rules provided he has put in requisite number of years of service and fulfills all other eligibility conditions. (The Rules referred to are the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the BSF Rules ) This G.O./Circular provided that the competent authority may, having regard to the special circumstances of a case, permit a member of the force to resign from the force before attainment of the age of retirement or before putting in such number of years of service as may be necessary under the rules to be eligible for retirement. The circular empowered the competent authority granting such permission to make such reductions in the pension or other retirement benefits of a member of the Force, if so eligible,... (emphasis added). The circular also advised the competent authority that in future while accepting the resignation of a member of the Force, the order should specify the reduction to be made in the pension, if any, as per the provisions contained in proviso (b) to Rule 19(1) of the BSF Rules, and further that failure to do so .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ain their seniority. Individual Registered/AD letters were sent to all such persons whose resignation had been accepted pursuant to circular dated 27.12.1995 conveying the aforesaid decision of the Director General, BSF. This circular in terms stated that if a member of the Force was not interested to rejoin the Force, he would not be entitled to any pension. Initially the first cut-off date for rejoining was 30.4.1999, which was later extended up to 30.6.1999 and, finally, up to 31.8.1999. Pursuant to the aforesaid circular of 17.10.1998, out of 1762 personnel recalled, 1065 personnel reported for work and they were allowed to rejoin the service subject to the conditions stipulated in the said circular. About 697 personnel, however, did not rejoin the service and the pensionary benefits payable to them were stopped. About 69 personnel who had less than 20 years qualifying service and who had resigned from the year 1979 onwards had also been sanctioned pension under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules even before the issuance of the circular dated 27.12.1995. About 19 personnel had been sanctioned the pensionary benefits under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, pursuant to the directions given b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ign from service under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules before the attainment of the age of retirement or before putting such number of years of service, as may be necessary under the Rules, to be eligible for retirement are not entitled to get any pension under any of the provisions under CCS (Pension) Rules. Rule 49 only prescribes the procedure for calculation and quantification of pension amount. The G.O. dated 27.12.1995 does not confer any additional right of pension on the BSF employees. Thus, with this authority of the Court, the doubts, misgivings and misinterpretation of Rule 19(1) of the BSF Rules were finally cleared. It is in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra) that we will have to decide if the writ petitioners before us are entitled to any relief. That the personnel of the Force who otherwise were not eligible to pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are not conferred with this benefit as a result of the misreading of Rule 19(1) of the BSF Rules as put forward in the G.O./Circular dated 27.12.1995 is beyond cavil from the judgment of this Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra). This position is also not contested by the learne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ar dated 17.10.1998. Rakesh Kumar (supra) was decided only in the year 2001, almost 3 years later. Such of the BSF personnel who had resigned in the hope of getting pensionary benefits, although not eligible for pension under the CCS Pension Rules 1972, had been given the opportunity of getting back into service by virtue of the circular dated 17.10.1998. Despite the deadline for reporting being extended from 30.04.1999 to 31.08.1999, about 697 personnel had failed to avail of the opportunity of returning to service. There cannot be any equity in favour of those that failed to avail of the opportunity of rejoining service. If any of them failed to take advantage of the offer for re-induction into service, they have only themselves to thank. In such cases, obviously, there cannot be any relief granted in the present writ petitions, contrary to the law declared by Rakesh Kumar (supra). There is no doubt that the position in law is that declared in Rakesh Kumar (supra) viz. that Rule 19 of the BSF Rules does not grant any right to pension in cases where pension is not payable under the CCS Rules 1972. Thus there is no question of this Court directing payment of pension to persons w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... given the option of re-induction into service, and those falling in category (B)(i)(a) shall be so re-inducted, subject to the conditions stipulated in circular dated 17.10.1998 and on condition that they shall refund the GPF and pension amounts drawn by them till re-induction. The authorities shall indicate the deadline by which such persons shall offer themselves for re-induction. 3. In the case of persons who shall fall in category B(i)(b), i.e. persons who had retired in 1996, were sanctioned pension but who cannot be re-inducted today as they are age-barred or physically or medically unfit or for any other reason including their inability to return the amount of GPF, pension drawn or other dues, there shall be no question of continuing payment of pension which shall be liable to cease as a result of the decision in Rakesh Kumar (supra). We are however of the view that equity demands that in such cases there shall be no recovery of the pension amounts already paid to them. 4. In cases which fall under category (A), i.e. personnel who had resigned prior to the circular dated 27.12.1995 and had been granted pension for special reasons and continued to draw it till the stop .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates