RAJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2006-1-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 04,2006

RAJ KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BHOPAL KANJILAL VS. U O I [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-609] [REFERRED]
NAIK EX. LN MOHAN RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, VS. P.C. PAUL [LAWS(KER)-2010-10-589] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. JARDINE HENDERSON STAFF ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2006-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
IDAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-5-58] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
NAIK JAGANNATH PAL VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-473] [REFERRED TO]
TEK CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. MADAN LAL [LAWS(J&K)-2012-7-74] [REFERRED]
KRISHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-600] [REFERRED]
NAIK RAMESH CHANDER VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-11-372] [REFERRED TO]
SRI KRISHAN VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-52] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED VS. GANESH CONTAINERS MOVERS SYNDICATE [LAWS(SC)-2019-1-71] [REFERRED TO]
LANCE NAIK BANWART LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-12-350] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD HAFIZ KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SINGH AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-1-245] [REFERRED TO]
HETRAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
SALIL SABHLOK VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DASS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2006-5-513] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. E V MADHU [LAWS(SC)-2012-4-36] [REFRRED TO]
KARAM BIR SIMGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-312] [REFERRED TO]
SUB INSP MIN S BHASKARAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
EX. L/NK DHARAM PAL SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-184] [REFERRED TO]
BHUVANENDRAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2014-4-141] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SUBIR SARKAR [LAWS(GAU)-2007-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
BHAWANI VERMA VS. UOI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
NARPAT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-7-179] [REFERRED TO]
SHAM LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2008-9-44] [REFERRED]
INDRA KUMAR MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-201] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA PRATAP NAYYAR VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-20] [REFRRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Srikrishna, J. - (1.)The writ petitions in this group arise from the same set of facts and seek the same relief. They can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.)For the purpose of facts, it would be sufficient to refer to the facts narrated in Writ Petition (C) No. 569/2001. The petitioners were holding different posts under the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "the Force"), constituted under the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the BSF Act"). The First Respondent is the Union of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Second Respondent is the Director General of the Border Security Force.
(3.)On 27-12-1995 the Second Respondent with the approval of the First Respondent and in consultation with the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare issued a G.O./Circular notifying that the Government had agreed with their views that "a member of the force is entitled to get pensionary benefits on resignation under Rule 19 of the said Rules provided he has put in requisite number of years of service and fulfills all other eligibility conditions." (The Rules referred to are the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as "the BSF Rules"). This G.O./Circular provided that the competent authority may, "having regard to the special circumstances of a case, permit a member of the force to resign from the force before attainment of the age of retirement or before putting in such number of years of service as may be necessary under the rules to be eligible for retirement." The circular empowered the competent authority granting such permission "to make such reductions in the pension or other retirement benefits of a member of the Force, if so eligible..." (emphasis added). The circular also advised the competent authority that in future while accepting the resignation of a member of the Force, the order should specify the reduction to be made in the pension, if any, as per the provisions contained in proviso (b) to Rule 19(1) of the BSF Rules, and further that failure to do so would imply that there was no reduction in the pension made.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.