Ram Naresh Singh vs The Union Of India And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4376 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6536 of 2017
     ======================================================

Ram Naresh Singh S/o Nirshan Singh, Resident of Village- Basantpur, P.O.- Vishnupur Baghangari, P.S.- Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

2. The Director General, Border Security Force, Block No. 10, 5th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi.

3. The Commandant, 70 Battalian, Border Security Force, at Ajnala District-

Amritsar.

4. The Deputy Commandant/ Adjutant for Commandant, 70 Battalian, Border Security Force, at Ajnala Disttrict: Amritsar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. For the UOI : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 31-08-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the Union of India through video conference.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following reliefs as formulated by the petitioner-

"(A) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside/quash the letter as contained in Memo No. 13285-86 dated 19/08/2015 and Memo no 2357 dated 13/02/2016, by the Deputy Commandant/Adjunct for Commandant 70 battalion (Responden No.4) whereby and where under an explanation has been asked to petitioner that his disability is neither directly attributed to the Gov. Service nor Patna High Court CWJC No.6536 of 2017 dt.31-08-2021

aggravated due to the service which is mandatory requirement under the clauses defined in rule-3A of CCS(EOP) Rule-1939 hence he is not eligible for grant of disability pension as under the provisions of CCS (EOP).

(B) For the issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions commanding the respondents to give and grant the pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits of service i.e. compassionate appointment of his son on the ground of his medical disability as it happen during service.

(C) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions for which the writ petitioner shall be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. The short facts of the case according to the petitioner

are that he was appointed as G.D. constable at Balurghat, West

Bengal on 16.03.1970, but soon thereafter he became ill and was

referred to hospital on 28.12.1973. He remained admitted in the

hospital until he was discharged on 16.06.1974. A sanction order

dated 20.03.1978 was issued showing the date of invalidation as

10.10.1977 and sanction was accorded to grant of Rs. 50/- per

month as financial assistance out of B.S.F. Contributory Ben Fund Patna High Court CWJC No.6536 of 2017 dt.31-08-2021

with effect from 01.11.1977 for the period of 10 years. By the

impugned order dated 12.08.2015, it was informed that the

petitioner was medically boarded out on 16.03.1978, but disability

pension could not released owing to non-completion of 10 years of

service, and the matter was in process of higher Headquarters for

seeking clarification/decision for entitlement. By the further

impugned letter dated 13.02.2016, it was informed that the

petitioner was not eligible for grant of disability pension as

requirement under Rule 3A of CCS(EOP) Rules, 1939 was not

satisfied as the disability was neither attributable to government

service nor aggravated due to the service.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was never served with any order of being medically

boarded out on 16.03.1978. It is only in the year 2015 that he was

informed for the first time by letter dated 12.08.2015 (Annexure-1)

that the matter of his disability pension was pending before the

higher authority, and thereafter by the impugned letter dated

13.02.2016 that he was not eligible for the same.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and

opposes the writ petition, submitting that the writ petition has been

filed in the year 2017 after a delay of more than three decades. He

invites reference to the aforesaid sanction letter dated 20.03.1978 Patna High Court CWJC No.6536 of 2017 dt.31-08-2021

(Annexure-3) granting Rs. 50/- per month as financial assistance

out of B.S.F. Contributory Ben Fund for a period of ten years. It is

stated that such financial assistance is paid when a person would

not be eligible for disability pension as he would not complete 10

years of service. It is submitted that the petitioner was well aware

of all relevant facts and that he did not render service after being

boarded out on 16.03.1978. The impugned letters as issued are

merely informatory in nature and cannot be treated as affording a

fresh cause of action.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that Rule 18(3) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969

contemplates that the Central Government shall communicate the

findings of the Medical Board to the officer, upon which a

representation may be made by the officer within fifteen days of

such communication. It is stated that no such communication was

made to the petitioner. It is further submitted that grant of Rs. 50/-

by way of financial assistance would not disentitle the petitioner

from his right to disability pension.

7. Having heard the parties and on consideration of

materials on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the

matter. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was sanctioned a grant

of Rs. 50/- per month by way of financial assistance out of the Patna High Court CWJC No.6536 of 2017 dt.31-08-2021

B.S.F. Contributory Ben Fund for a period of 10 years which he

has accepted without demur. The said letter dated 20.03.1978

shows the date of invalidation as 10.10.1977 based on which the

financial assistance was granted. It is also not the case of the

petitioner that he had rendered service thereafter. This Court

therefore finds it difficult to accept the petitioner's plea that he was

not aware that he had been boarded out in the year 1978. This is

borne out from his representation dated 08.12.2013 (Annexure-4)

wherein he has specifically stated that "The Department gave me

retirement medically unfitted". As regards the report of the

Medical Board not having been made available, is must be held

that the petitioner has not acted with due diligence. He obviously

was well aware that he had been medically examined by the

Medical Board but took no step in that regard nor filed any

representation for over three decades since 1978, rather he chose

to accept the financial assistance and not join duty.

8. The writ petition is thus devoid of merit and stands

dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) rishi/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          03.09.2021
Transmission Date