RAJ KUMAR AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 04-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
RAJ KUMAR AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
JANUARY 4, 2006 
(B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
-~--
Service law: 
Pensionary benefits-Entitlement to, when BSF personnel resigning 
before completing minimum qualifYing service for grant ,.r pensionary benefits- c 
Held: Not entitled as 1969 Rules do not grant right to pension to persons 
otherwise ineligible under CCS Pension Rules, 1972-Border Security Force 
Act, 1968/Rules, 1969, Rule 19. 
On 27.12.1995, the authorities issued G.O./Circular notifying that 
.... 
I 
the a member of the force is entitled to get pensionary benefits on D 
resignation under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 
provided he has put in requisite number of years of service and fulfills all 
other eligibility conditions. In response to the said circular, large number 
of personnel of the Force were prompted to resign from service in the hope 
of getting pensionary benefits. 
E 
On 17.10.1998 the authorities issued a circular conveying that those 
personnel whose resignations had been accepted after the circular dated 
27.12.1995 under mistaken impres~ion of their entitlement to pensionary 
~ 
benefits, but who had not yet been granted pension, should be called back 
to rejoin immediately. Pursuant to this circular, those who reported for F 
work were allowed to rejoin the service subject to the conditions stipulated 
' . 
in the said circular. In respect of those personnel who did not rejoin the 
service, the pensionary benefits payable were stopped. 
In these Writ Petitions, the grievance of petitioners is that, though 
a large number of personnel had returned to duty after complying with G 
the conditions stipulated in circular dated 17.10.1998, in the cases where 
' 
pension had been sanctioned, they were prevented from coming back to 
)'· 
duty as a result of individual letters dated 31.10.1998. In such cases the 
pension has been stopped pursuant to the judgment in Rakesh Kumar* 
which has resulted in double jeopardy, as the personnel concerned lost 
169 
H 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20061 I S.C.R. 
A their service as well as pensionary benefit. 
Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court 
Held: 1. The personnel of the Force who otherwise were not eligible 
to pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 could not be 
B 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./Circula:- dated 27.12.1995. 
' 
(175-H; 176-AI 
-~ 
c 
Union of India and Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar and Ors.,* 1200114 SCC 309, 
relied on. [174-F) 
2. 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 
D 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 
E present writ petitions, contrary to the law declared by Rakesh Kumar*. 
(176-H; 177-A-BI 
F 
Union of India and Ors. v. Lt. Col. P.S. Bhargava, (1997) 2 SCC 28 
and Praduman Kumar Jain v. Union of India and Anr., 11994) Supp 2 SCC 
548, held inapplicable. 1177-DI 
4. Having considered the peculiar facts, the following orders are 
made:-
(I) The personnel who had retired subsequent to 1996 pursuant to 
the circular dated 27.10.1995 and had not been sanctioned pension, but 
G who had been directed to report for re-induction in service, shall 
necessarily have to forfeit their pension, if they had not reported for service 
by virtue of the circular dated 17.10.1998. 1178-D-F) 
(II) In the case of personnel, who retired in 1996, were sanctioned 
pension, were asked not to report for re-induction and were in a position 
H to be re-inducted into service even now, they shall also be given the option 
RAJ KUMAR v. U.0.1. 
171 
) 
of re-induction into service subject to the conditions stipulated in circular A 
dated 17.10.1998 and on condition that they shall refund the GPF and 
pension amounts drawn by them till re-induction. I 178-F, GI 
'"' 
(III) In the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.