Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
1998 Latest Caselaw 1102 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Rule.

2. Counsel for the petitioners state that petitioners were offered re-employment by the respondent. Counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners are not interested in joining the Border Security Force.

3. On 1st December, 1998 I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Mr. Madan Lokur, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India. At the outset my attention was drawn to a Division Bench judgment of this court in Kuldip Singh v. Union of India (CW 915/94) decided on 29.8.1995. As the respondents did not prefer appeal against the said judgment to the Supreme Court, said judgment has become final. I seems that after the judgment in Kuldip Singh's case, a letter was issued by the respondents dated 27.12.1995 wherein it was decided that in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969 and based on the approval of Ministry of Home Affairs, in future authorities who accept the resignation of the member of the force shall specify in the order the reduction to be made in the pension or other retirement benefits as per the provisions contained in proviso (ii) to Rule 19(1) of the BSF Rules, 1969,. In case no such reduction was specified in the order regarding acceptance of resignation it would imply that no reduction in the pension has been made. Direction was also issued that in the shortest possible time limit the instructions should be complied with and pensionary benefits be given to all the persons.

4. In view of the judgment of the Division bench of this Court as well as the departmental instructions to implement in letter and spirit the judgment as well as the provisions of the rules made in the Act, I do not see any justification by the respondent not to give pensionary benefits to the petitioners. Following Kuldip Singh's case (supra), I allow all the writ petitions. The petitioners shall be entitled to their pensionary benefits with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petitions.

5. Mr. Lokur states that interest cannot be awarded to the petitioners as some of the petitioners have resigned before the judgment in Kuldip Singh's case. In view of the settled proposition of law that pensionary benefits are neither a bounty nor a gratuitous act, I do not find am force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents. Respondents arc directed to reimburse all the benefits within a period of three months.

6. With these observations, petitions stand disposed of. Rule is made absolute.