Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court in releasing proportionate pension in view of Rule 49(2)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as "1972 Pension Rules".
(2.) THE petitioner was enrolled as Constable in Indo Tibetan Border Police (hereinafter to be referred as "ITBP") on 02.04.1965. He resigned in the year 1976 on account of illness of his father which was allowed and he was made to resign from 31.08.1976. The petitioner claims to have made an application on 10.02.2003, Annexure P3, for release of pension. Subsequently, another application was made on 12.01.2006, Annexure P4. Since pension was not released to the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The claim of the petitioner is that a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 17053 of 2003 titled Nand Lal v. Union of India decided on November 01, 2004, has granted pension in case of resignation of a member of Border Security Force (hereinafter to be referred as "BSF"). In reply, it has been pointed out that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as there is inordinate and unexplained delay of 30 years. The petitioner resigned from ITBP on 31.08.1976, whereas the writ petition has been filed in March, 2006. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Lt. Col. Balwant Singh v. Union of India 2003(3) Services Law Reporter 627. It is also pointed out that in terms of 1972 Pension Rules, on resignation from a service or a post, the past service stands forfeited and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pension. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not completed 20 years of qualifying service and, thus, he is not entitled to pension under Rule 48 -A of 1972 Pension Rules and that the provisions of Indo -Tibetan Border Police Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred as "ITBP Act") and the rules framed thereunder are not applicable in view of Section 157 of the ITBP Act as the petitioner was not in the strength of ITBP when the aforesaid Act came into force.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Section 8 of ITBP Act and Rule 27 of the ITBP Rules. The said Act and the Rules came into force in the year 1992, whereas the petitioner resigned in the year 1976. Section 8 of the Act prohibits any resignation by a member of the force. However, under Rule 27, with regard to special circumstances, a member of the force can be permitted to resign before completing the term of engagement. Therefore, the said Act and Rules cannot be relied upon by the petitioner.;