Director General, Border Security Force and Ors. Vs. Deenamma Sanuel  Insc
1269 (12 December 2007)
Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J:
learned counsel for the appellants.
in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court
dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellants.
in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a learned Single Judge in O.P.
No.4287 of 2000. The High Court relied on some earlier decisions to hold that a
person resigning under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (in
short `the Rules') is entitled to pension if he is eligible. The writ appeal
was dismissed and the appellants were directed to dispose of the representation
of the respondent in the light of the Relying upon this judgment, the learned
Single Judge had directed the respondents in the writ petition to consider the
representation of the appellant within a stipulated time.
counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent was not eligible for
pension as she had completed only 18 years and three months of service. Strong
reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No.6166 of 1999
and connected cases, disposed of on 30.03.2001.
Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:- In the result, there is no
substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that on
the basis of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules or on the basis of G.O., the
respondents who have retired after completing qualifying service of 10 years
but before completing qualifying service of 20 years by voluntary retirement,
are entitled to get pensionary benefits. Respondents who were permitted to
resign 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 additional right of pension
on the BSF employee. (Underlined for emphasis) There is no appearance on
behalf of the respondent inspite of service of notice.
view of what has been stated by this Court, it is for the appellants to
consider the question of eligibility. Neither the learned Single Judge nor the
Division Bench decided about the eligibility. The only direction given was to
consider the representation.
open to the appellants to reject the representation by deciding the issue of
eligibility. If the respondent has any grievance to such rejection, she can
take appropriate remedy as available in law. We, therefore, dispose of the
appeal holding that the representation be disposed of, if pending within three
months after deciding the question of eligibility. Needless to say if the
respondent has any grievance, she can agitate it before an appropriate forum.
appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.