HomeSupreme Court JudgementSupreme Court Judgment - CCS Pension Rules for BSF Personnel

Supreme Court Judgment – CCS Pension Rules for BSF Personnel

Border Security Force Rules, 1969 – Rule 19 – pensionary benefits – Held, the respondents had resigned from BSF service immediately after completion of 10 years service and, therefore, they are not entitled to any pensionary benefits.

R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.

APRIL 26, 2012
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s) . 9647-9650 OF 2003 

J U D G M E N T

 Delay condoned.

2. We have heard Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. M.P. Vinod, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The respondents were the original writ petitioners before the High Court. They were constables in the Border Security Force (BSF). On completion of 10 years service, they tendered resignation. Their resignation was accepted by the Commandant 48 BN BSF. The order accepting resignation provided that they would be entitled to pensionary benefits at their own request on extreme compassionate grounds. Later on, it was found that the pensionary benefits were not admissible to them and few others whose resignation was accepted under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (for short, ‘BSF Rules’). Accordingly, on October 20, 1998, a letter was sent intimating them that no pensionary benefits were admissible to those who have proceeded on resignation under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules. However, their case for reinstatement in BSF would be considered subject to refund of all payment made to them from the Government such as GPF, Gratuity, CGEGIS, etc. on their resignation. The respondents challenged the above communication by filing two separate Writ Petitions.

4. The writ petitions were contested by the present appellants (respondents therein). Their stand in the High Court was that the writ petitioners were governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short, ‘CCS (Pension) Rules’) and as per these rules the minimum qualifying service for pension is 20 years and, therefore, they were not entitled to any pension.

5. The Single Judge of the High Court referred to Rules 19 and 182 of the BSF Rules and relevant provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, particularly Rules 26, 48-A and 49(2)(b). The Single Judge held that when the petitioners (therein) were allowed to resign with pensionary benefits under 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. Accordingly, the Single Judge, by his judgment dated September 29, 1999, allowed the writ petitions and directed the present appellants to grant pension to the petitioner (respondents herein) in accordance with Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

6. Against the order of the Single Judge, the present appellants preferred Writ Appeals. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge and dismissed the Writ Appeals vide judgment dated August 25, 2000. While doing so, the Division Bench referred to the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Ex-Naik Rakesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others – C.W.P. No. 761 of 1998. It is from this order of the Division Bench that the present Appeals, by special leave, have arisen.

7. The judgment of the Himachal High Court in Ex-Naik Rakesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others was challenged by the Union of India before this Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2001) 4 SCC 309. The question involved therein was – Whether members of BSF who have resigned their posts after serving for 10 years or more years but less than 20 years are entitled to pension/pensionary benefits under relevant provisions of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, ‘BSF Act’) and the BSF Rules or the CCS (Pension) Rules.

8. This Court referred to Section 8 of the BSF Act and Rule 19 of the BSF Rules and the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, particularly Rules 35, 36, 48, 48-A and 49. G.O. dated December 27, 1995 issued by the Central Government was also referred to. After quoting G.O. dated December 27, 1995, this Court in para 20 of the report observed as follows :-

“20. The aforesaid GO makes it clear that there was a demand for grant of pensionary benefit on acceptance of the resignation under Rule 19 and that demand was accepted by the Government. Para 2 of the GO makes it clear that the Government has agreed that a member of BSF is entitled to get pensionary benefits on resignation under Rule 19 provided he has put in requisite number of years of service and fulfills all other eligibility conditions. This para only reiterates Rule 19. It also clarifies that authority competent to grant permission to resign is also empowered to make reduction in pension if the member of BSF is eligible to get such pension. Para 5 provides that in future the competent authority who accepts the resignation would specify in the order the reduction to be made in the pension if any and if no such reduction is specified in the order, it would imply that no reduction in the pension has been made. Under para 6, directions are issued for pending cases where resignation was accepted but pensionary benefits were not allowed and provide that necessary orders should be passed within shortest possible time. Reading the aforesaid GO as a whole, it nowhere reveals the Government’s intention to confer any additional pensionary benefits on the members of BSF who retired before completing the requisite qualifying service as provided under the CCS (Pension) Rules. It neither supplements nor substitutes the statutory rules. The GO read with Rule 19 of the BSF Rules would only mean that in case of resignation and its acceptance by the competent authorities, the member of BSF would be entitled to get pensionary benefits if he is otherwise eligible for getting the same under the CCS (Pension) Rules and to that extent Rule 26 which provides for forfeiture of service on resignation would not be applicable. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the GO or specific orders passed by the competent authority granting pension, the appellants are estopped from contending that such officers are not entitled to get pensionary benefits. As stated above, the GO does not confer any additional benefit. Even in the specific order which is quoted above in favour of Naik Rakesh Kumar, the authority has stated that he would get pensionary benefits as admissible under the Rules. Under the Rules, he is not entitled to get such benefits.”

9. While dealing with the arguments of the ex BSF personnel that on the basis of the G.O. dated December 27, 1995, a number of persons are granted pensionary benefits even though they have not completed 20 years of service and, therefore, the Court should not interfere and see that the pensionary benefits granted to the respondents (therein) are not disturbed and are released as early as possible, this Court observed that for grant of pension to the members of BSF, the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules are applicable and the CCS (Pension) Rules nowhere provide that a person who has resigned before completing 20 years of service as provided in Rule 48-A is entitled to the pensionary benefits. It was expressly held that Rule 19 of the BSF Rules did not make any provision for grant of pensionary benefits. In para 22 of the report, this Court concluded:-

“22. 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 the GO, 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. The 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 the CCS (Pension) Rules. Rule 49 only prescribes the procedure for calculation and quantification of pension amount. The GO dated 27-12-1995 does not confer any additional right of pension on the BSF employees.”

10. In a later decision in the case of Raj Kumar & Others Vs. Union of India and Another, (2006) 1 SCC 737, this Court was again concerned with the similar question. This Court referred to the earlier decision of this Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Rakesh Kumar (supra) and reiterated the position that was declared in Union of India & Others Vs. Rakesh Kumar (supra), namely, that Rule 19 of the BSF Rules did not grant any right to pension in cases where pension was not payable under the CCS (Pension) Rules. In para 17 of the report, the Court catalogued the cases before it as follows :

“17. ….

(A) Pre-circular. Personnel who resigned and were granted pension for special reasons, even prior to the circular dated 27-12-1995.

(B) Post-circular. Personnel who resigned pursuant to the circular dated 27-12-1995. These persons can be further divided into two sub-categories.

(i) Personnel who retired in 1996, were sanctioned pension and were therefore asked vide letter dated 31-10- 1998 not to report for reinduction. Their pension has been stopped pursuant to the judgment in Rakesh Kumar (supra). These persons can be further divided into two sub- categories:

(a) those who are in a position to be reinducted into service even now; and

(b) those who cannot be reinducted into the service as a result of being age-barred or due to being medically or physically unfit.

(ii) Those who retired subsequent to 1996, were not sanctioned pension, and were directed to report for reinduction into service or to forfeit pension benefits by virtue of the circular dated 17-10-1998 and the individual letters.”

11. Having regard to the peculiar facts arising in each of the above groups, this Court made the following orders :

“1. The personnel falling in category (B)(ii) i.e. those persons who had retired subsequent to 1996 pursuant to the circular dated 27-10-1995 and had not been sanctioned pension, but who have been directed to report for reinduction in service shall necessarily have to forfeit their pension, if they have not reported for service by virtue of the circular dated 17-10-1998. If, however, they have reported for service then there is no question of any relief in their case.

2. In the case of persons falling in category (B)(i), they shall also be given the option of reinduction into service, and those falling in category (B)(i)(a) shall be so reinducted, subject to the conditions stipulated in the circular dated 17-10-1998 and on condition that they shall refund GPF and pension amounts drawn by them till reinduction. The authorities shall indicate the deadline by which such persons shall offer themselves for reinduction.

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 reinducted 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 stoppage of pension as a result of the judgment in Rakesh Kumar (supra) we think that irrespective of the position in law, equity demands that, as they have drawn their pension for long periods, they shall not be asked to refund their drawn pension amounts, nor shall their pension be stopped now.”

12. In view of the decisions of this Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Rakesh Kumar (supra) and Raj Kumar & Others Vs. Union of India and Another (supra), the legal position that emerges is this : Rule 19 of the BSF Rules does not entitle any pensionary benefits on resignation of its personnel. The pensionary benefits are not ordinarily available on resignation under CCS (Pension) Rules since Rule 26 provides for 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 CCS (Pension) Rules. The CCS (Pension) Rules do 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 amount and not the minimum qualifying service.

13. The view taken by the Single Judge and judgment of the Division Bench upholding the view taken by the Single Judge cannot be upheld and have to be set aside in light of the legal position noted above.

14. In the present case, the respondents had resigned from BSF service immediately after completion of 10 years service and, therefore, they are not entitled to any pensionary benefits.

15. We, accordingly, allow these Appeals and set aside the orders dated August 25, 2000 passed by the Division Bench and dated September 29, 1999 passed by the Single Judge. We, however, observe that amount of pension paid to the respondents herein, if any, shall not be recovered.

16. No costs.

joinwhatsapp

28 COMMENTS

  1. Sr..me.no.85002589.ct
    V.Ramsingh..b.138./bn.bsf
    Mene13/05/1995..me.
    Mera.pension.mnjur.kiya
    Lekin..Pension..form. Bhrke.bhejja

    Lekin.abb to..RS.pyssa..kuss.mila.nhi.he

    Odar.no.Dg.D.k.Aarya.dilhi
    1016_17/11jan/96

  2. Sir I am Adi narayana Reddy, Inspector, I left BSF in 2014 June 30th due to domestic problem. I joined in BSF 2004 as an Sub inspector. I completed my service 10yrs 6months 18 days. Sir I am not getting gratuity amount. I left BSF from Tekanpur. Sir I am not eligible for gratuity? .If eligible how to I am proceed to get it. Pls give me solicit advice me
    My email id – keerthi.adi@ gmail.com
    7026228130

    • Sir myname ypradeep kumar reddy
      Iretired stc bsf tekanpur since 1996 after 12 years sixmonths service.
      My phone no.7416132327

  3. I Respect Sir my service no861217166 L/Nk Jagdishchandra. S/O. Nathuram SHARMA I Resigned National service through under Rule 19 of B.
    Boder Security force Rule 1969/ I am joint 1986 and 1997 come total service 11 year 3 month but I am not revive any benefit pension paid division batch order date 25. 9. 2000 single jadge passed date 29. 9 1999 sir iam not Revive any benefit please help me

  4. D. H-20182MARAJA SAYS APRIL 05-04-2018 AT 20 PM I RESPECTED SIR IAM 89009793 CONSTABLE I HAD RESIGNED NATION SERVICE THROUGH BORDER SECURITY FORCE SINCE 01.03.1989 TO 28-02-1999 TILL IWAS NOT RECIVED ANY PENSION BENEFIT SO PLEASE YOU MAY MAY KINDLY ARRANGE PENSION AND PENSION ARREARS WEF 28/02/1999 TANK YOU SIR REPLY MY EMAIL ADDRAS hemaraja1968 @gmail.com

  5. I jabbanda karumbaiah kuttappa completed 13 years service with 102 BN bsf and not having any pension and not received any reply from pm office about my request

  6. Sir
    My grandfather was in bsf. He was complete only 6years service . then he was medically board out .is he able to pension? Please reply on my no. 7833879410 or 8262888655, 9625398536

  7. I RESPECTED SIR ‘IAM NO89009793 CONSTABLE D,HEMARAJA ,I HAD RESIGNED NATION service through border security force, ,since o1,03.1989 to 28,02,1999 till,i was not received any pension benefit, the supreme court divisional bench passed as on 25.09.2000,the single judge dated;29/09/1999 passed after completion of 10 yers service and observe that amount of pension so please you may kindly arrange pension and pension arrears w e f 28/02/1999 thank you sir

    reply my ph no 9008289416

  8. Respected sir,
    I have completed bsf 12years 4 months 56bn no:821020519 since I don’t have any pension I saw a modi speech in television so I want to know how to had a pension by modi scheme

  9. I no 81102466 ex-L/Nk shankar kudari.
    resigned from 42bn bsf in the year 31/1/1992 my total service is 10 year,03.months at the time of resignation.am i elgible for pension? Kindly reply at your earliest & i hope that you will not disappointed me

  10. CHACKO VARGHESE,NO-88255762,153 BN BSF
    S/O VARGHESE CHACKO,VALUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
    NELLIMUKKU PO,QUILON(DIST)KERALA-691509,

    I Respected Sir, Iam No.88255762 Constable Chacko Varghese,I had resigned service Border Security Force since Aug-1998.After completion of 10 years 3 months due to my family problem i.e. I alone male member in my home also old age parents & small children etc… I was not received any pension benifits. The Supreme court Divisional Bench passed as on 25.09.2000, The Single Judge Dated 29.-09.1999 passed after completion of 10 years 3 months service and observe that amount of PENSION.So, please you may kindly arrange pension and pension arrears w.e.f Aug 1998,
    Please replay me my e-mail I.D, my ID is [email protected]
    Your kind co-operation in this regard will be highly appreciated.
    Thanks & Regards
    Chacko Varghese

  11. I no 13450623. I regination from service in bsf because domestic problem. Dated 31/10/2016. I rejoin service in bsf, befor 3 months time period Dated 30/01/2017. Can, I rejoin service in bsf. Plz reply me my Email id. My id is [email protected]

  12. I want to ask there is a girl in our Colony .Her Mother and father both are dead as they where suffering from cancer .Her father was BSF pentioner The Girl is 22 yrs old she is a student of PG now no source of her living hood can she get pension of his father .Please answer this question it is very very important.

    • Yes, the pensioners daughter is eligible to get min pension upto the age of 25 yRs if the chidren of deceased widower/ unmarried, if their parents expired. However you may approach the DG BSF,FHQ, CGO COMPLEX, NEW DELHI 04 for further information / assistance plz.

  13. G.MANOHARAN NO,890098367.67BN BSF (S/O,A.GOPAL MUTHUSERVAMADAM-VPO,UDAIYARPALAYAM-TALUK.,ARIYALUR-DISTRICT.,TN.)612903.CELLNO;7502309221

    Respected sir,I am no 890098376 name G.Manoharan, I had resigned Nation Service Through B .S. F.,as on 05.10.2000.,My Service in B.S.F. from 01.03.1989.to 05.10.200 till.The Supreme Court Order of Divisional Bench Passed .B.S.F. Resigned person after completion 10 Years Service that amount of pension paid.
    Divisional Bench Order dated;25.09.2000.
    Single Judge Passed dated ;29.09.1999.

    am no 890098376 name G.Manoharan, I had resigned Nation Service Through B .S. F.,as on 05.10.2000.,My Service in B.S.F. from 01.03.1989.to 05.10.200 till.The Supreme Court Order of Divisional Bench Passed .B.S.F. Resigned person after completion 10 Years Service that amount of pension paid.
    Divisional Bench Order dated;25.09.2000.
    Single Judge Passed dated ;29.09.1999.
    So,please arrange pension other bending arrears W. E. F. 05.10.2000.
    Thank you Sir.

  14. G.MANOHARAN NO,890098367.67BN BSF (S/O,A.GOPAL MUTHUSERVAMADAM-VPO,UDAIYARPALAYAM-TALUK.,ARIYALUR-DISTRICT.,TN.)612903.CELLNO;7502309221

    I RESPECTED SIR,I AM NO;890098376 CONSTABLE G.MANOHARAN. I had resigned Nation Service through Border Security Force.Since 1.03.1989 to 05.10.2000 Till. I was not received any pension Benefit.The Supreme Court Divisional Bench Passed as on 25.09.2000.The Single Judge dated;29.09.1999 Passed after Completion of 10 Years Service and Observe that amount of pension. so,please,You may kindly arrange Pension and pension arrears w e f 5.10.2000. Thank You Sir.

  15. Sir
    I joined as a direct employee in a central gov. autonomous body ,Textiles committee, under Min.of Textiles on 30-4-1976.
    My first acp was delayed almost3years 6 months for no reason but uninformed official annual confidential reports.
    My first acp under 5th cpc was given from pay band 5500-175-9000 to 8000-275-13500 wef 1-4-2003,
    My 2nd acp was given in the pay scale 10000-325-15200 wef 12-12-2003 on 2-11-2007
    I retired from my service on 31-8-2009 after competing 33 years and 4 months, on superannuation
    Even though I have completed more than 33 years service, our office not given me 3 rd acp.
    Now, as i came to know that as per the Supream court rule: un informed advers ACR’S to the concerned employee canot be taken to denay ACP.
    On this issue Kindly anybody refer me the Supream court ruling and oblise

    • Sir Mera name shyamlal hai mai 75 unit bsf me naukri karta tha mara belt number 7913280 hai maine 1991 me ok discharge leya and 1997 me grant of painsaion order diye but mari painsain aaj tak nahi dee mare paas Etna paisa nahi hai Jo main high coart me case lad Saku mara mukddma pada hai allahabad high court me 2019 se painding me maine punha joining mangi fir bhi mana Kar diya 1998 me restatement kar diya Atha sriman ji se nivadan hai ki hame koi rasta batei thank you sir

Leave a Reply to d hemaraja Cancel reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Just In