Naik Jagannath Pal vs U.O.I & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 548 Del

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
                    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6287/2008
                            Date of decision: 1st Feburary, 2010
     NAIK JAGANNATH PAL                  ..... Petitioner
           Through:Mr.K.Venkataraman, Advocate.

                       versus

     U.O.I & ORS                ..... Respondents

Through:Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No

GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)

1. The writ petitioner was recruited as Lance Nayak in the Border Security

Force ('BSF' hereafter) on 11th May, 1986. Admittedly, after completion of

approximately 10 years of service, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement

from the Force on 31st August, 1997. It is contended that the petitioner was

under the impression that he would remain entitled to award of all retiral

pensionary benefits.

2. It is an admitted case that by a circular dated 27th of December,

1995, the members of the BSF were permitted to resign with the permission of

the Commissioner Authority even before completing qualifying service for

pension. It was indicated that in such eventuality, pension would be released on

pro-rata basis under Rule 19(1) of the BSF Rules, 1969.

Thereafter, the respondents issued a circular 15th January, 1998 stating that the circular dated 27th of December, 1995 was issued under a mistaken

impression that pension could be so released before expiry of 20 years of service.

3. The writ petitioner states that by a general order passed on 20th July, 1998,

the respondent informed all personnel who had resigned in terms of Rule 19 of

the Border Security Force Rules based on the circular dated 27th December, 1995

between the period 1996 to 1998 having less than 20 years of service would be

taken back into the Force immediately. In addition to the general order, the

respondent no.3 admittedly sent a notice by registered letter to the residential

address of the petitioner informing the petitioner that a person who has worked in

the Boarder Security Force and had sought retirement on a mistaken reading of

Rule 19 aforesaid, would be re-employed with the Force. This communication

required the petitioner to approach and join the respondents within 20 days of the

receipt of the letter. The petitioner admittedly did not resume service.

4. The respondent no.3 sent yet another communication to the petitioner on

17th October, 1998 and again by 24th August, 1999 giving the petitioner last

opportunity to resume service before the 31st of August, 1999. The petitioner

failed to comply with any of these communications. No steps at all to resume

service were taken by the petitioner for almost three years till the 21st March,

2002 when he claimed that he had addressed a letter by registered post

informing the respondent that he was ill and involved in business for which reason

he could not resume service. It was contended by the petitioner that he has

closed his business and was therefore seeking to resume his service. Other than

sending this letter nothing is placed before us that the petitioner took any step at all in furtherance thereof.

5. Even the communication in the year 2002, no challenge was laid by the

petitioner for a period of four years till such time he approached the Allahabad

High Court by way of a writ petition bearing WP( C) No.70972/2006. This writ

petition was not entertained on account of the bar to the territorial jurisdiction of

the said court and was dismissed on this ground on 23rd February, 2007. The

petitioner appears to have awaited for a period of over a year even thereafter

before approaching this court by way of the present writ petition.

6. We find that the petitioner took retirement on 31st August, 1997 and despite

repeated notices to resume the service with the

respondent no.3, he did not care to do so while he had admitted knowledge

thereof. The stand of the petitioner in his representation in the year 2002 was to

the effect that he was carrying on his business. The plea of sickness of the

petitioner does not inspire any confidence. The petitioner had placed reliance on

a medical certificate wherein it is stated that the petitioner was diagnosed as

suffering from schizophrenia, for which he was under treatment from 1 st October,

1998 to 2nd November, 2001. The two pleas taken by the petitioner are

contradictory and self destructive.

The petitioner appears to have accepted this resignation and non-grant of

pension by the respondents and made no effort to either resume service or

approach this court.

7. In the judgments dated 30th March, 2001 in Civil Appeal No. 6166/1991

Union of India vs. Rakesh Kumar and the pronouncement reported at AIR 2006 SC 938 entitled Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India, the Apex Court held that

entitlement to pension of the BSF personnel did not arise on account of Rule 19 of

the Border Security Force Rules but only under Rule 48A of the CCS Rules

mandating 20 years of service for grant of retiral benefits.

8. The petition would require to be dismissed on the ground of delay and

laches alone. We have found the petition to be devoid of merit as well. There is

yet another reason why the petitioner is not

entitled to relief. Our attention has been drawn to the pronouncement of this

court in WP(C)no.3971/2007 entitled L/N Ranjit Singh & Ors Vs. Union of

India dated 7th December, 2009 whereby a relief similar to that sought by the

petitioner was rejected.

For all these reasons, we find no merit in this petition and the same is

dismissed.

GITA MITTAL,J

VIPIN SANGHI, J FEBRUARY 01, 2010 rds