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

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 465

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

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

Judgment text

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE ~ AND ORS. v. DEENAMMA SANDEL DECEMBER 12, 2007 [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDP. SATHASIVAM,JJ. ] Border Security Force Rules, 1969: r. 19-Employee permitted to resign in terms ofr. 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 ofeligibility-Ifemployee has any grievance against their decision, she can take appropriate remedy as available in law. -1 The instant appeal was filed by the Department challenging the judgmentoftheHigh Courtwhereby itdirectedthe authoritiesto dispose of the representation of the respondent-employee claiming that she having been permitted to resign in terms of Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, was entitled to pension. Itwas contended for the appellants that the respondentwas not . eligible for pension as she completed only 18 years and three months I of service.

Disposing ofthe appeal, the Court HELD: Itis for the appellants to considerthe question ofeligibility. Neither the Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court decided about the eligibility. The only direction givenwas to consider the representation. It was open to the appellants to reject the representation by deciding the issue ofeligibility. Ifthe respondent has any grievance to such rejection, she can take appropriate remedy as available in law. [Para 6and 7] [467-D, E, F] Union ofIndiav. Rakesh Kumar etc. , [2001] 2 SCR 927, relied on. Jos. v. Border Security Force, (1999) 3KLT904, cited. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 928 of 2002. From the final Judgment and Order dated 30. 8. 2000 ofthe High Court ofKerala at Emakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1588 of2000. Sunita Sharma and Sushma Suri for the Appellants. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment ofa 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 ofthe 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 ofthe representation ofthe respondent in the light of the judgment referred to i. e. Jos. v. Border Security Force, (1999) 3 KLT 904. Relying upon this judgment, the learned Single Judge had directed the respondents in the writ petition to consider the representation ofthe 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 months ofservice.

Strong reliance is placed on a decision ofthis 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:- "In the result, there is no substance in the contention of the THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY 467 FORCE v. DEENAMMA SANDEL [PASAYAT, J. ] 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 I0 years but before completing qualifying service of20 years by voluntary retirement, are entitled to get pensionary benefits. Respondents who were permitted to resign from service under Rule 19 ofthe BSF Rules before the attainment ofthe age of retirement or before putting such number ofyears ofservice, as may be necessary under the Rules, to be eligible for retirement are not entitled to get any pension under any ofthe provisions under CCS(Pension) Rules.

Rule 49 only prescribes the procedure for calculation and quantification ofpension amount. The G. O. dated 27. 12. 1995 does not confer additional right of pension on the BSF employee. " (Italics for emphasis) j 5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent inspite of service ofnotice. 6. In view of what has been stated by this Court, it is for the appellants to consider the question ofeligibility. Neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench decided about the eligibility. The only direction given was to consider the representation. 7. It was open to the appellants to reject the representation by deciding the issue ofeligibility. Ifthe respondent has any grievance to such \ rejection, she can take appropriate remedy as available in law. We, therefore, dispose ofthe appeal holding that the representation be disposed of, ifpending within three months after deciding the question ofeligibility.

Needless to say ifthe respondent has any grievance, she can agitate it before an appropriate forum. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. RP. Appeal disposed of.