THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE AND ORS. versus DEENAMMA SANDEL

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 12-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE 
A 
~ 
AND ORS. 
v. 
DEENAMMA SANDEL 
DECEMBER 12, 2007 
B 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDP.SATHASIVAM,JJ.] 
Border Security Force Rules, 1969: 
c 
r.19-Employee permitted to resign in terms of r.19-Claim for 
pension-High Court directing the authorities to decide the 
representation within the stipulated time-HELD: It is for the 
authorities to consider the question of eligibility-If employee has any 
grievance against their decision, she can take appropriate remedy as D 
-1 
available in law. 
The instant appeal was filed by the Department challenging the 
judgment of the High Court whereby it directed the authorities to dispose 
of the representation of the respondent-employee claiming that she E 
having been permitted to resign in terms of Rule 19 of the Border 
Security Force Rules, 1969, was entitled to pension. 
It was contended for the appellants that the respondent was not 
. I 
eligible for pension as she completed only 18 years and three months 
of service. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: It is for the appellants to consider the question of eligibility. 
Neither the Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court G 
decided about the eligibility. The only direction given was to consider 
the representation. It was 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 
465 
H 
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A available in law. [Para 6 and 7] [467-D, E, F] 
B 
Union of Indiav. Rakesh Kumar etc., [2001] 2 SCR 927, relied on. 
Jos. v. Border Security Force, (1999) 3 KL T 904, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 928 of 
2002. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.8.2000 of the High 
Court ofKerala at Emakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1588 of2000. 
c 
Sunita Sharma and Sushma Suri for the Appellants. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the 
appellants. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of 
the Kt:rala High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellants. 
Challenge in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge in O.P. No.4287 of2000. The High Court relied on some earlier 
decisions to hold that a person resigning under Rule 19 of the Border 
E 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 judgment referred to i.e. Jos. v. Border Security Force, (1999) 3 
KL T 904. Relying upon this judgment, the learned Single Judge had 
F directed the respondents in the writ petition to consider the representation 
of the appellant within a stipulated time. 
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent 
was not eligible for pension as she had completed only 18 years and three 
G 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. 
4. This Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:-
H 
"In the result, there is no substance in the contention of the 
j 
\ 
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY 
467 
FORCE v. DEENAMMA SANDEL [PASAYAT, J.] 
learned counsel for the respondents that on the basis of Rule 49 A 
of the CCS (Pension) Rules or on the basis of G.O., the 
respondents who have retired after completing qualifying service 
of I 0 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 B 
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 C 
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." 
(Italics for emphasis) D 
5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent inspite of 
service of notice. 
6. In view of what has been stated by this Court, it is for the 
appellants to consider th

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