Lal Chand vs Union of India

Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Admitted facts in this case are that the petitioner was recruited as constable in 45 Bn. of Border Security Force on

1.10.1996 and was posted at different places in the said force. He tendered his resignation and had more than 10 years service at the time of its

acceptance by the authorities of the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as BSF).

Parties are further not at variance that resignation was accepted in the year 1979 by the authorities when he was ""discharged'. The case of the

petitioner is governed by the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and Rules framed thereunder. In addition to this

Act, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to Pension Rules), are applicable to the Border Security Force. In exercise

of powers vested in the Central Government under Section 141 of the Act. The Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to Rules

of 1969), have been framed, which came into force w.e.f. 13th June, 1969.

Resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the authorities of the Border Security Force under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1969.

By means of present writ petition a prayer is made for the grant of all pensionary benefits by issuing writ of mandamus against the respondents.

Petitioner clams that since he fullfilled qualifying service of 10 years as such he is eligible for the grant of aforesaid relief. According to him this relief

could not have been denied. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the following communications :

a) Communication dated 3.3.1997 from Deputy Commandant/Adjutant, 52 Bn. BSF to the petitioner.

b) Letter dated 6th June, 1997 from the Office on 52 Bn. BSF to the Deputy Director (Accounts), PAD BSF Pushpa Bhavan, Madangir, New

Delhi62.

c) Letter dated 23rd July, 1997 from Deputy Commandant/Adjutant, 52 Bn. BSF to the Deputy Director (Accounts), Director General Pay and

Accounts Department, Pushpa Bhavan, Madangir, New Delhi.

Prayer for the grant of pension was turned down by the higher authorities of the Force. This fact was conveyed to him by the Commandant 52

Bn. BSF vide communications dated 19th May, 1998 and 17th September, 1998 (AnnexureB).

From the narration of the above facts petitioner's case is very simple, because he fulfilled qualifying service of 10 years, therefore, he is entitled

to the grant of pension in terms of the Pension Rules.

On the other hand stand of the respondents is that the petitioner resigned from service and entry to that effect was made in his service record.

According to them the petitioner earned six punishments under the Act and the Rules of 1969. Matter according to them was processed by the

concerned authorities, wherein amongst other things petitioner was informed that the grant of pension under Rule 19 was under consideration with

the higher authorities. But vide decision on 15.1.1998, it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to the pension on resignation after 10 years of

qualifying service. In this background of the case, plea of the respondents is that writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner does not

fulfil the qualifying service of 20 years as per Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Delay and laches of 19 years is also put

up as a ground for dismissal of the writ petition. This plea is being dealt with first of all.

Ordinarily stale claims suffering from delay and laches would not be entertained while determining the cases under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir State. It is good and legal ground for dismissal of such stale

claims. However, in case of pension this plea may not be open to the respondents, reason being that so far claim for payment of pension is

concerned, it is recurring every month, and refusal to pay the same gives right to a person like the petitioner for appropriate directions as per law

against the authority concerned.

In this case it may not be out of place to mention here that as per showing of the respondents, petitioner approached the authorities for the grant

of pension in March, 1996. Not only this but thereafter, vide communication dated 7.5.1996, Annexure RII, respondents called upon him (the

petitioner) to complete the formalities by providing four joint photographs etc. in terms of that letter so that his case is forwarded to the higher

authorities. The petitioner also seems to have represented to the Minister for Home Affairs and the authorities of Border Security Force vide

AnnexureRI. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that because of delay and latches writ petition merits dismissal.

Another fact that emerges from the aforesaid narration of facts as well as well as from the documents attached by the parties with their

respective pleadings is, that till the rejection of the claim in January, 1998, matter relating to grant of pension to the petitioner was in the pipe line

and was being examined by the authorities under the Act and the Rules. In this view of the matter plea of the delay and laches infact is untenable

and has been raised simply to be rejected. I have no hesitation to observe that in the circumstances of the case this plea is neither open to the

respondents nor it ought to have been raised.

Before examining the case further, it may also be appropriate to point out that whether a person retires after completing the qualifying service

under the Pension Rules or submits its resignation or applies for retirement under some voluntarily retirement scheme floated by the Government or

an employer in the Public Sector Undertaking, significant and only one consequence that follows is that relationship of Master and Servant stands

determined without any remarkable distinction.

Another noteworthy fact that needs to be pointed here is that the pension is admissible to a government servant under the Pension Rules as in

the present case, neither as a matter of concession nor as a bounty. It is granted by the government under subordinate legislation framed under

Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is in fact after rendering qualifying service that the pension is earned by the government servant under

rules. Therefore, it is for such rendered service that as a matter of right he is entitled for the grant of the same. Another purpose of enacting the

Pension Rules and its payment is that after having given best part of his life in the service of the government, in lieu thereof and as a measure of

assurance to its employees by the employer, that when they are out of job they would be provided something when such relationship comes to end

as noted hereinabove. This is of course subject to fulfilment of the necessary requirements under relevant Pension Rules governing an employee like

petitioner. Thus pension is a property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and a person like petitioner cannot be

deprived of the same, save and except the authority of law.

What is nature of pension came up for consideration before Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, AIR 1983

SC 130. Observations relevant in this behalf were as under :

....Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service

rendered in the past. However, as held in Dodge v. Board of Education, (1937) 302 US 74 : 82 Law Ed 57, a pension is closely akin to wages in

that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet

the expenses of living. This appears to be the nearest to our approach to pension with the added qualification that it should ordinarily ensure

freedom from undeserved want.

Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past but pension also has a

broader significance, in that it is a measure of socioeconomic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental

prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave

your best in the hey day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured.

The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowances or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender or rights or emoluments

to one retired from service, thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and, therefore,

can be said to be deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. One sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for

pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to

fall back upon.

Further, the Court held :

From the discussion three things emerge (i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer

and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred

by the proviso to Article 309 and Clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an exgratia payment but it is a payment

for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio economic justice to those whom in the hey day of their life

ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of

pension is a certain percentage correlated to the average emoluments drawn during last three years of service reduced to ten months under

liberalised Pension Scheme. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impecable behaviour even subsequent to retirement, that is,

since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure.

As already noted reliance is placed by the respondents on Rules 48 and 48A of the Pension Rules, 1972 and Rule 19 of the Rules of 1969.

For ready reference these provisions are extracted herein below :

Retirement on completion of 30 years' qualifying service (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed thirty years qualifying

service

(a) he may retire from service; or

(b) he may be required by the appointing authority to retire in the public interest, and in the case of such retirement the Government servant shall be

entitled to a retiring pension :

Provided that

(a) a Government servant shall give a notice in writing to the appointing authority at least there months before the date on which he wishes to retire;

and

(b) the appointing authority may also give a notice in writing to a Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required

to retire in the public interest or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice :

Provided further that where the Government servant giving notice under Clause (a) of the preceding proviso is under suspension, it shall be open to

the appointing authority to withhold permission to such government servant to retire under this rule :

Provided further that the provisions of Clause (a) of this subrule shall not apply to a Government servant including scientist or technical expert who

is

(i) on assignments under the Indian Technical and Economic Corporation (ITEC) Progamme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid

programmes,

(ii) posted abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries/Departments,

(iii) on a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government,

unless, after having been transfered to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year.

(1A) (a) Government servant referred to in Clause (a) of the first proviso to subrule (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to

accept notice of less than three months giving reasons therefor.

(b) On receipt of a request under Clause (a) the appointing authority may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three

months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, appointing authority

may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government servant shall not apply for commutation of a part of his

pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months.

(2) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary intimation to the effect to the appointing authority

shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the specific approval of such authority :

Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be within the intended date of his retirement.

(3) For the purpose of this rule the expression ""appointing authority"" shall mean the authority which is competent to make appointments to the

service or post from which the Government servant retires.

48A. Retirement on completion of 20 years' qualifying service. (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty years' qualifying

service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service :

Provided that this subrule shall not apply to a Government servant, including scientist or technical expert who is

(i) on assignments under the India Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITCE) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid

programmes.

(ii) posted abroad in foreign based offices of Ministries/Departments,

(iii) on a specific contract assignment as a foreign Government.

unless, after having been transferred to India, he has rescued the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year.

(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under subrule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority :

Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the

said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.

(3) Deleted.

(3A) (a) A Government servant referred to in subrule (1) may make request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary

retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefor.

(b) on receipt of a request under Clause (a), the appointing authority subject to the provisions subrule (2) may consider such request for the

curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any

administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government

shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months.

(4) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority,

shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority :

Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement.

(5) The pension and retirement gratuity of the Government servant retiring under this rule shall be based on the emoluments as defined under Rules

33 and 34 and the increase not exceeding five years in his qualifying service shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for purposes of

calculating pension and gratuity.

(6) This rule shall not apply to a Government servant who

(a) retires under Rule 29, or

(b) retires from Government service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking to which he is on

deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement.

Explanation : For the purpose of this rule the expression ""appointing authority"" shall mean the authority which is competent to make appointments

to the service or post from which the Government servant seeks voluntary retirement.

Resignation : (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the special circumstances of any case, permit any officer of the Force to

resign from the Force before the 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.

Provided that while granting such permission the Central Government may :

(i) require the officer to refund to the Government such amount as would constitute the cost of training given to that officer; or

(ii) make such reduction in the pension or other retirement benefits of the officer if so eligible as that Government may consider to be just and

proper in the circumstances.

(2) The Central Government may accept the resignation under subrule (1) with effect from such date as it may consider expedient :

Provided that it shall not be later than three months from the date of receipt of such resignation.

(3) The Central Government may refuse to permit an officer to resign :

(a) if an emergency has been declared in the Country either due to internal disturbances or external aggression; or

(b) if considers it to be inexpedient so to do in the interests of the discipline of the Force; or

(c) if the Officer has specifically undertaken to serve for a specified period and such period has not expired.

(4) The provisions of this rule, shall apply to and in relation to subordinate officer and Enrolled Persons as they apply to and in relation to any

Officer of the Force and the powers vested in the Central Government under subrules (1) and (2) shall be exercised in the case of a Subordinate

Officer by a Deputy InspectorGeneral and in the case of an Enrolled Person by a Commandant.

So far present case is concerned Rule 48 has nothing to do. Then question that needs to be further seen is whether Rule 48A (supra) disentitles

the petitioner to the grant of pension as claimed by him. A perusal of this Rule only suggests that a person with 20 years of service can retire from

service after having given not less than three months notice in writing to the appointing authority. This requires acceptance by the appointing

authority. Thereafter consequence would follow on the acceptance of such resignation. Besides this, how the government servant can withdraw

such resignation is also provided in this Rule.

In the context of present case for ascertaining qualifying service, Rule 49 of the Pension Rules governs the case of the petitioner. This in the

considered opinion of this Court is relevant and material and needs to be extracted as it will go long way in determining the present writ petition.

Amount and pension (1) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing

service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly

period of gratuity qualifying service.

(2)(a) In the case of Government servant retiring in accordance with the provision of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years,

the amount of service qualifying shall be calculate at the rate of half month's emolument for every completed six monthly period of qualifying

service.

(b) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty three

years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under

Clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension admissible under three hundred and seventy five per mensem.

(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) and Clause (b) the amount of invalid pension shall not be less than the amount of family

pension admissible under subrule (2) of Rule 54.

(3) In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed onehalf year

and reckoned as qualifying service.

(4) The amount of pension finally determined under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of subrule (2), shall be expressed in whole rupees and where the

pension contains a fraction of a rupee it shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee.

(5) Deleted.

(6) Deleted.

To be very specific case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Rule 49(2)(b). Respondents do to appear to have examined the case of the

petitioner in the light of this provision of Pension Rules. Reason for this observation is that not a word has been said in their pleadings filed in

opposition to the present writ petition.

In this behalf it may also be appropriate to notice that subrule (2)(b) of the Rule 49 (supra) clearly speaks of Government servant is retiring in

accordance with these (Pension) Rules before completing qualifying service of 33 years ""but after completing service of 10 years"" (Emphasis

supplied), the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under clause (a) of Rule 49(2), and in no case such an

amount of pension would be less than Rs. 375/ per month.

It is not understood nor anything brought to my notice during the course of hearing of this writ petition in the shape of either any Rule,

Regulations, government instructions or case law that a person having 10 years qualifying service in accordance with Rule 49(2)(b) (supra) is not

entitled for the grant of pension as in the present case. When a reference is made to the pleadings of the respondents as well as documents

produced by them it is evidently clear that the case of the petitioner was not at all examined with reference to Rule 49(2)(b).

To be fair to the learned counsel for the respondents plea urged with vehmence may be noted here. Since the petitioner has resigned under

Rule 19 of the Rules of 1969, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of pension. When this provision is examined there is nothing to suggest

anything in that behalf. On what principal of law muchless legal authority, this arguemnt was raised on behalf of the respondents could not be

explained by the learned counsel. Therefore, it is obvious that simply because resignation of the petitioner was accepted before he either attained

the age of retirement or having put in such number of years of service as was necessary under the Rules to be eligible for his retirement, pension

cannot be denied to him. It may be worthwhile to notice that so far proviso (ii) to Rule 19(i) is concerned it was omitted vide So166 dated

14.1.1998.

In this context what emerges is that it is Rule 49(2)(b) and not Rule 48A of the Pension Rules which governs the case of the petitioner so far

grant of pension to him is concerned, and at the same time Rule 19 of the Rules 1969 does not in any manner improve the case of the respondents.

In 1995(2) SCT 250 (Delhi) : 1994(7) SLR 163, Sudarshan Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , claim of pension was

denied to a person who had resigned whereas, it was allowed in case of all those who rendered qualifying service under the Pension Benefits

Scheme. After following the decision of Supreme Court of India in case D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India (supra), writ petition was

allowed and pension granted.

In Smt. J.S. Rukmani, etc. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others, 1985 Lab. I.C. 677, the Pension Scheme notified by Tamil Nadu Government

restricted the benefit of family pension to the members of the family of only those Government servants who last served at a place falling with in the

territories of the successor State of Tamil Nadu. This was held to be arbitrary and the Court extended the benefit to all the employees of Tamil

Nadu.

In 1998(1) SCT 242, Jagpal Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation , matter relating to grant of pension under Rules 48 and 49 of the Pension

Rules came up for consideration. In this case Delhi Transport Undertaking had introduced pension scheme for its employees as applicable to the

Central Government employees. Thereafter voluntarily retirement scheme was also introduced. Petitioners in this case was allured to retire much

earlier than their normal retirement age and thus were denied certain benefits. It is because of the scheme floated by the respondents when

petitioners were persuaded to seek voluntarily retirement. In this back ground what was held was as under:

These petitioners were not allowed to be superannuated in the normal circumstances. They were allured to retire much earlier than their

normal retirement age and, therefore, held out certain benefits. It is not the petitioners who asked for voluntary retirement. It was rather the

respondent who took out a scheme and persuaded by giving allurement to the petitioners to seek voluntary retirement. Had they been told that they

would not be getting a lump sum amount by way of exparte (gratia) as mentioned in para 4(c), or that the ex parte (gratia ?) was an alternative

offer to the pensioner benefits, the petitioners might not have sought for the voluntary retirement. One of the petitioner, namely, Tagpal Singh of

C.W. No. 4216/94 had made representation thereby withdrawing his application oting for voluntary retirement. This he did much before his option

was accepted. Yet he was made to retire w.e.f. 31st May, 1993. Petitioners lost their jobs and the perks going with that and yet not paid their

lawful dues, it is nothing but a case of mala fide on the part of the respondent. It was not a normal retirement. DTC only wanted to get rid of its

employees, hence, offered the scheme with certain benefits specified in para No. 4 of the scheme dated 3.3.1993. Petitioner and the like opted for

the same and now after having obtained their option, DTC cannot be allowed to deprive them from the benefit on the basis of which their voluntary

retirement was accepted. The DTC cannot be allowed to build up an argument which is contrary to its own scheme.

For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allowed. Petitioners are entitled to the pensionary benefits as per law. They will be paid

pension in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as discussed above. The rule is made absolute. Directions are given to the respondent to

work out the amount of pension due to each of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks and the same be paid immediately thereafter with no

order as to costs.

In 1996(7) SCC 113, Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India and others, in the case of Quasipermanent employee who had put in 181/2

years long service was allowed to retire premature dehors of the requirement of at least 20 years. Despite there being no material on record as to

why he was not made permanent after having put in such a long period of service. In this case Court held that he is deemed to have become

permanent and was allowed pension with the following observations :

The appellant sought premature retirement from goverment service after he had put in 181/2 years of service in two different departments under

the Central Government. Although a request for premature retirement could be made only after 20 years of government service but the Union of

India granted premature retirement to the appellant at a stage when he had served the Government for 181/2 years. The question for determination

is whether the appellant is entitled to any pensionary benefits. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant.

Dr. Anand Prakash, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Union of India, has contended that on 7.3.1980 when the appellant was

prematurely retired he had put in 181/2 years of quasipermanent service. According to him, to earn pension it was necessary to have a minimum of

10 years of permanent service. It is contended that since the total service of the appellant was in quasipermanent capacity he was not entitled to the

pensionary benefit. There is nothing on the record to show as to why the appellant was not made permanent even when he had served the

Government for 181/2 years. It would be travesty of justice if the appellant is denied the pensionary benefits simply on the ground that he was not

a permanent employee of the Government. The appellant having served the Government for almost two decades it would be unfair to treat him as

temporary/quasipermanent. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case we hold that the appellant shall be deemed to have become

permanent after he served the Government for such a long period. The services of the appellant shall be treated to be in permanent capacity and he

shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to treat the

appellant as having been retired from service on 7.3.1980 after serving the Government for 181/2 years (more than 10 years of permanent service)

and as such his case for grant of pension be finalised within six months, from the receipt of this order. The appellant shall be entitled to all the

arrears of pension from the date of retirement. No costs.

One comes across very few cases which are identical both on facts and law. However, near to the facts of the present case on facts and law a

case came up for consideration before Kerala High Court in Jose v. Border Security Force, 2000(1) SCT 713. What emerges after examining this

judgment is that identical defence of Rule 19 based on Rules of 1969 as well as Rule 48A of Pension Rules was put up (as in the present case) by

the authorities of the Border Security Force. After examining the case it was held as under :

On the basis of the above Rule it was argued by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel that only persons who retire under these

Rules are entitled to the benefit of the above subrule. It was further submitted that the petitioners did not retire from service in accordance with the

CCS (Pension) Rules. They were allowed to resign from service. Therefore, R. 49(2)(b) has no application in the case of the petitioners.

On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioners points out that under Rule 182 of the B.S.F. Rules C.C.S. (Pension) Rules will continue to

be applicable to the B.S.F. personnel unless modified or abrogated by the Government or any other competent authority.

So when the BSF Rules make C.C.S. (Pension) Rules applicable to persons like the petitioners, it must be understood in the light of the

provisions contained in the B.S.F. Rules. If the petitioners are allowed to resign with pensionary benefits under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, then the

petitioners' claim for pension must be worked out under Rule 49(2)(b) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules. Therefore, Rule 49(2)(b) of the C.C.S.

(Pension) Rules cannot be narrowly interpreted so as to deny the pensionary benefits to the petitioners who were allowed to resign with pensionary

benefits as per Ext. P1 Order. If the argument of the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel is accepted, persons who are

allowed to retire under the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules alone will be entitled to pension. That cannot be the case. If C.C.S. (Pension) Rules are made

applicable to the B.S.F. Rules, it may not be said that persons who retire under the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules alone are entitled to get the benefit of

Rule 49(2)(b) of the Rules. Such interpretation will work out injustice to a large number of persons who were governed by other Rules or

enactments, but to whom the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules are specifically made applicable.

Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in these original petitions. The respondents are directed to grant pension to the petitioners in

accordance with Rule 49(2)(b) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules. Orders in this respect must be passed within three months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner in O.P. No. 3295/1999 has got a grievance that his P.F. amount has not been disbursed. It is for the

petitioner to take up the matter before the appropriate authority.

Original petitions are disposed of as above.

As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion and on examination of the provisions of the Act, Rules of 1969, as also Pension Rules what emerges

in the present case is, that under Rule 49(2)(b) supra qualifying service enabling a government servant like petitioner to claim pension is 10 years

and not 20 years as was urged on behalf of the respondents, Rule 19 of the Rules of 1969 has nothing to do so far grant of pension as in the

present case is concerned. What further follows in this case is that no distinction can be drawn between a person who retires after having put in

requisite and qualifying service and in the case of person who retires voluntarily after putting in minimum qualifying service as in the present case.

No other point is urged.

This writ petition deserves to be allowed and as a consequence of it rejection of the claim of the petitioner vide PAD Letter No.

24/1/97Pers/BSF dated 15.1.1998 is hereby quashed and set aside. And at the same time, it is ordered that respondents would examine the case

of the petitioner a fresh, thereafter, work out his pension w.e.f. 1.3.1996 within a period of three months from today and would release the same

within a further period of one month. In case other retieral benefits remain unpaid/unsettled those would also be finalised and released within this

period, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest on the outstanding amount of arrear of pension and unsettled/unreleased retiral

benefits w.e.f. 1.3.1996 till the date of actual payment @ 12% per annum. Documents attached with the pleadings of the respondents suggest that

requisite papers have been submitted by the petitioner. However, if still something remains to be done by him he will be personally informed by the

respondents through a special messenger to do the needful, who shall complete such formalities within a period of two weeks thereafter in such a

situation time as allowed hereinabove would stand extended by two weeks. Respondents will also pay the costs of the petition in this case which

are fixed at Rs. 2000/.

When this case was taken up on 23.5.2000 learned counsel for the parties submitted that it may be heard finally and disposed at this stage

keeping in view the controversy involved in it. Learned counsel appearing for respondents stated that objections filed may be treated as counter

since those are with affidavit. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that no rejoinder is required to be filed in this

case. In these circumstances after taking petition as admitted it has been heard finally and has been disposed of as prayed for by both the learned

counsel.