UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus MADHU E.V. & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 26-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 470 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
MAOHU E.V. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9647-9650 of 2003) 
APRIL 26, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.) 
Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - r. 19 - Constables 
in Border Security Force (BSF) resigning from service on 
C completion of 10 years of service - Constables allowed to 
resign with pensionary benefits ulr. 19 - Pensionary benefits 
- Entitlement to - Held: r. 19 does not entitle any pensionary 
benefits on resignation of its personnel - However, by virtue 
of G.O. dated December 27, 1995 read with r. 19 of Rules, a 
o member of BSF would be entitled to get pensionary benefits 
if he is otherwise eligible - Such personnel must satisfy 
eligibility under CCS (Pension) Rules which does not provide 
that a person who has resigned before completing 20 years 
of service is entitled to the pensionary benefits - On facts, 
E constables had resigned from BSF service immediately after 
. completion of 10 years service, thus,. not entitled to any 
pensionary benefits - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 
1972 - rr 26, 48-A and 49(2)(b). 
Respondents-constables in the Border Security 
F Force (BSF) tendered their resignation on completion of 
10 years service under Rule 19 of the Border Security 
Force Rules, 1969. Their resignation was accepted and 
it was provided that the respondent would be entitled to 
pensionary benefits. However, subsequently the 
G respondents were intimated that no pensionary benefits 
were admissible to them. The respondents filed writ 
petitions challenging the said communication. The Single 
Judge of the High Court held that when the petitioners 
H 
470 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MAOHU E.V. & ANR. 
471 
were allowed to resign with pensionary benefits under A 
Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, then their claim for pension 
must be worked out under Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCS 
(Pension) Rules. The Single Judge allowed the writ 
petitions and directed the appellants to grant pension to 
the respondents in accordance with Rule 49(2)(b) of the 
B 
CCS (Pension) Rules. The Division Bench of the High 
Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge. Therefore, 
the appellants filed the instant appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1. Rule 19 of the Border Security Force 
Rules, 1969 does not entitle any pensionary benefits on 
resignation of its personnel. The pensionary benefits are 
not ordinarily available on resignation under Central Civil 
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 since Rule 26 provides for D 
forfeiture of service on resignation. However, by virtue of 
G.O. dated December 27, 1995 read with Rule 19 of BSF 
Rules, the member of BSF would be entitled to get 
pensionary benefits if he is otherwise eligible. Such 
personnel must, therefore, satisfy his eligibility under 
E 
CCS (Pension) Rules. The CCS (Pension) Rules does not 
provide that a person who has resigned before 
completing 20 years of service is entitled to the 
pensionary benefits. Rule 49 only prescribes the 
procedure for calculation and quantification of pension 
F 
amount and not the minimum qualifying service. [Para 12] 
[479-A-D] 
1.2. In the instant case, the respondents had 
resigned from BSF service immediately after completion 
of 10 years service and, therefore, they are not entitled 
G 
to any pensionary benefits. [Para 14) [479-E-F] 
1.3. The view taken by the Single Judge of the High 
Court and judgment of the Division Bench of the High 
Court upholding the view taken by the Single Judge 
H 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A cannot be upheld and are set aside. However, the amount 
of pension paid to the respondents, if any, would not be 
recovered. [Paras 13 and 15] [479-E-H] 
Ex--Naik Rakesh Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. 
8 C.W.P. No. 761 of 1998; Union of India and Ors. vs. Rakesh 
Kumar (2001) 4 sec 309: 2001 (2) SCR 927 - relied on. 
c 
Raj Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr. (2006) 
1 SCC 737: 2006 (1) SCR 169 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2001 (2) SCR 927 
Relied on. 
2006 (1) SCR 169 
Referred to. 
Paras 7, 10, 12 
Paras 10, 12 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
D 9647-9650 of 2003. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.8.2000 of the High 
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 443 & 279 of 
2000 and order dated 28.9.2000 in Review Petition No. 413, 
E 443 & 414 of 2000 in W.A. No. 279 of 2000. 
F 
Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma, Rashmi 
Malhotra, B.K. Prasad, Sushma Suri for the Appell

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