Banwari Lal vs The Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 15836 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Banwari Lal vs The Union Of India on 20 November, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:47020]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15135/2021

Banwari Lal S/o Shri Hansram, Aged About 54 Years, Resident
Of- Village- Gopalpura, Post- Surajgarh, District- Jhunjhunu.

                                                                    ----Petitioner

                                     Versus

1.       The Union Of India, Through The Deputy Secretary,
         Department Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Lok
         Nayak Bhawan Khan Market, New Delhi- 110003.

2.       The Director General Of Bsf, Hqr Dg Bsf, Block No. 10,
         Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.

3.       The Inspector General Of Bsf, Frontier Hqr Bsf, Mandore
         Road, Jodhpur.

4.       The Commandant, 23 Battalion Border Security Force,
         Through The Director General Of Bsf, Hqr Dg Bsf, Block
         No. 10, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.

                                                                 ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)          :     Dr. Kshmendra Mathur
                                 Mr. Dinesh Dadhich
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Abhishek Sharma



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

30/10/2025 (corrected on 20.11.2025)

1. The instant Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to

the respondents to restore the Pension Payment Order

No.240559609390/166071 dated 08.08.1996 issued by Central

Pension Accounting Office, Govt. of India , New Delhi forthwith,

along with arrears accruing from the date of its discontinuation i.e

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (2 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

order No.CPAO/A-III/2001-2002/BSF/Vol-2/P-2/ dated 23.08.2001

issued by the Central Pension Accounting Office, Govt. of India,

New Delhi, along with all consequential benefits.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the petitioner was

enrolled in the Border Security Force (BSF) on 14.07.1985 as a

Constable and, after rendering over a decade of meritorious and

unblemished service, rose to the rank of Lance Naik. His request

for voluntary retirement was duly accepted on 31.03.1996 under

Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, framed under the BSF Act, 1968,

with entitlement to full pensionary benefits, and a discharge

certificate was accordingly issued. Tragically, shortly thereafter, on

14.04.1996, the petitioner suffered a grievous accident resulting

in amputation of his right hand and leg, rendering him 100%

permanently disabled. Pursuant thereto, pension was initially

sanctioned vide Pension Payment Order No.240559609390 dated

08.08.1996; however, it was abruptly discontinued after nearly

four years i.e. vide order No.CPAO/A-III/2001-2002/BSF/Vol-2/P-

2/ dated 23.08.2001, on the pretext of a Supreme Court judgment

dated 30.03.2001 in SLP No. 6166/1999, to which the petitioner

was neither a party nor a beneficiary. Despite repeated

representations seeking restoration of his pension or permission to

rejoin service to complete any shortfall in qualifying service, the

petitioner was declared medically unfit. The abrupt cessation of

pension without notice, coupled with denial of gratuity and CGHS

medical benefits, caused grave financial hardship and violated the

principles of natural justice as well as his right to livelihood under

Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence the instant Writ Petition.

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (3 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

2.1. It is recorded that the petitioner's voluntary retirement was

accepted under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969

(framed under the Border Security Force Act, 1968); the request

was allowed in "special circumstances" and the discharge

certificate on record records that pensionary benefits were

sanctioned at the time of retirement (Annexure-1).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the

impugned action of the respondents, submits that the denial and

subsequent forfeiture of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, who

was permitted to retire under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, is

wholly illegal, arbitrary, and devoid of statutory sanction. It is

urged that there exists no provision under the BSF Rules or the

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules authorizing forfeiture or

denial of pension to a person who has voluntarily retired under the

rules. The action of the respondents, therefore, stands in direct

violation of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

3.1. It is contended that the term pension, as defined under

Article 366(17) of the Constitution of India, encompasses any

periodical payment, contributory or otherwise, payable in

consideration of past service and includes gratuity and provident

fund returns. Pension, being a deferred wage and a vested right,

is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace, but a constitutionally

protected property right, as held in D.S. Nakara v. Union of

India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, wherein a Constitution Bench

unequivocally declared that pension constitutes a social welfare

measure and deferred compensation for past service rendered,

creating a vested right in the employee.

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (4 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

3.2. Counsel further submits that the petitioner's voluntary

retirement under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules was duly accepted with

full pensionary benefits, and his service of over ten years

constitutes qualifying service under the prevailing legal regime.

Reliance is placed upon the judgments of DTC v. Lillu Ram,

(2017) 11 SCC 407, and DTC v. Balwan Singh, (2019) 18

SCC 126, which conclusively affirmed that an employee who has

rendered ten years or more of qualifying service is entitled to

proportionate pension. It is emphasized that at the time of the

petitioner's retirement in 1996, pursuant to the Fourth Pay

Commission Notification of 1987, the qualifying service threshold

stood at ten years, which fully entitled him to pensionary benefits.

3.3. It is argued that the respondents' reliance on a subsequent

circular, issued without authority of law, to withdraw pension

retrospectively is ultra vires, arbitrary, and violative of the

petitioner's legitimate expectation. The action of discontinuing

pension after four years of regular disbursement, without notice or

hearing, infringes the principles of natural justice and the

petitioner's right to livelihood under Article 21. The arbitrary

deprivation of pension and gratuity, both recognized as property

under Article 300A, is also constitutionally impermissible.

3.4. Learned counsel further contends that the respondents have

adopted inconsistent and discriminatory stands in similarly

situated cases. In Ex-Lance Naik Pema Ram's case, the BSF

categorically recognized ten years of service as qualifying for

pension; in Ex-Lance Naik P.A. Nazar's case, pension was granted

after judicial intervention; and in cases of Ct. Ved Singh and

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (5 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

Mohan Ram, pensionary benefits were extended or reinstated

under identical circumstances. Conversely, the petitioner's pension

has been withheld on the untenable ground of non-completion of

twenty years of service, which is contrary to their own precedents

and correspondence, including letters dated 10.09.2016,

08.01.1981, and an undated communication from the BSF Pension

Section. Such contradictory treatment, it is urged, violates the

equality mandate of Article 14 and amounts to hostile

discrimination.

3.5. The counsel submits that Rule 19 of the BSF Rules authorizes

voluntary retirement "in special circumstances" and only permits

reduction of pension in rare cases; it does not contemplate

forfeiture of pension under any circumstance. Hence, the

respondents' interpretation of the rule is perverse and legally

untenable. The deprivation of the petitioner's pension, gratuity,

and CGHS medical benefits for over two decades, despite his

permanent disability and absence of any misconduct, is manifestly

unjust and inhuman. Reliance is placed on U. Raghavendra

Acharya v. State of Karnataka, (2006) AIR SC 2145, wherein

the Supreme Court held that pension is a deferred salary and a

property right, which cannot be taken away by executive

instructions.

3.6. It is further contended that the respondents' actions are

antithetical to the principle of equality and fairness as enunciated

by the Seven-Judge Bench in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,

(1978) 1 SCC 248, wherein Article 14 was interpreted as striking

at arbitrariness in State action. Denial of pension to the petitioner,

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (6 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

while granting it to identically placed personnel, exemplifies

discriminatory treatment and administrative caprice.

3.7. Lastly learned counsel asserts that the right to pension

constitutes a continuing cause of action, capable of being enforced

at any time post-retirement. The respondents' attempt to recover

amounts already paid towards provident fund and leave

encashment, as a precondition to reappointment, further

aggravates the illegality and violates the petitioner's vested

property rights. The impugned action, therefore, being arbitrary,

inequitable, and unconstitutional, warrants judicial intervention for

restoration of the petitioner's pension, gratuity, medical benefits,

and all consequential dues with interest.

4. The respondents, in their counter submissions, have

categorically denied the petitioner's averments, asserting that the

petitioner had voluntarily tendered his resignation on 26.02.1996

under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, which merely empowers

the competent authority to accept a resignation in special

circumstances but does not confer any entitlement to pensionary

benefits. It is contended that the pension earlier sanctioned to the

petitioner was erroneously granted, as he had not completed the

mandatory qualifying service of twenty years as required under

Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972,

which exclusively govern pension eligibility for BSF personnel. The

stoppage of pension, according to the respondents, was carried

out in faithful compliance with the binding directions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar &

Others (2001) and Union of India v. Raj Kumar & Others

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (7 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

(2006), wherein it was held that personnel resigning before

completion of twenty years of qualifying service are not entitled to

pension. It is further stated that the petitioner was offered re-

induction in accordance with the aforesaid judgments but was

found medically unfit due to amputation of limbs. The respondents

maintain that there exists no rule, circular, or administrative

instruction authorizing the grant of pension to a person who

resigns before completing the prescribed qualifying service, and

that Rule 19 of the BSF Rules cannot override or supplement the

CCS (Pension) Rules. The action taken is therefore asserted to be

strictly in accordance with law, consistent with judicial precedents,

and free from arbitrariness or illegality; consequently, the

petitioner, lacking any vested or enforceable right, cannot invoke

the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article

226 of the Constitution, as no fundamental or statutory right has

been infringed.

5. Upon consideration, I have heard learned counsel for both

sides, examined the rival contentions, and carefully perused the

record as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (supra). The concluding part of

para No.16 of the said judgment is being reproduced as under:-

16...... It is also to be stated that Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules specifically provides that resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service unless resignation is submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment under the government where service qualifies. Hence, on the basis of Rule 49 member of BSF who has resigned from

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (8 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

his post after completing more than 10 years of qualifying service but less than 20 years would not be eligible to get pensionary benefit. There is no other provision in the CCS (Pension) Rules giving such benefit to such government servants.

The Hon'ble Apex Court, while interpreting Rule 49 of the

CCS (Pension) Rules, observed that a member who resigns from

service after completing more than ten years but less than twenty

years of qualifying service would not be entitled to pensionary

benefits. However, upon a meticulous examination of the statutory

framework, this Court finds that the respondents' reliance on

Rakesh Kumar (supra) is misplaced, as the petitioner's case falls

under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, which is distinct from

resignation simpliciter and carries specific implications concerning

pensionary rights. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1969 is being

reproduced as under:-

19. 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 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 three months pay and allowances, whichever is

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (9 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

higher;] or[* * *] [Omitted by S.O. 166, dated 14.1.1998 (w.e.f. 24.1.1998). ] [Provided further that an officer of the Force tendering resignation, for accepting a job under Central or State Governments or local bodies, after having been granted cadre clearance for the same [or who has completed 10 years of service] shall not be required to refund the sum as provided herein-above.]

(2) The Central Government may accept the resignation under sub-rule (1) with effect from such date as it may consider expedient.[* * *] [Omitted by S.O. 166, dated 14.1.1998 (w.e.f. 24.1.1998). ]

(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 due to exigencies of service or] [Substituted by S.O. 166, dated 14.1.1998 (w.e.f. 24.1.1998). ] 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 officers 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 sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be exercised in the case of a subordinate officer by a Deputy Inspector- General and in the case of an enrolled person by a Commandant.

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (10 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, framed

under the BSF Act, 1968, when read together with rule 49(2)(b) of

the CCS (Pension) Rules,1972 empowers the competent authority

to permit a member of the Force to "resign or retire" in special

circumstances, and authorizes the grant of pension and other

retirement benefits as may be admissible under the rules. The

said provision, unlike a simple resignation under the Central Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, contemplates a voluntary retirement on

compassionate or exceptional grounds and, therefore, does not

attract automatic forfeiture of past service. Once such retirement

is duly accepted under Rule 19 with sanction of pensionary

benefits, it constitutes a voluntary retirement, not a resignation,

and the individual continues to remain governed by the CCS

(Pension) Rules for purposes of determining pension entitlement

under Rule 49 thereof. Hence, the petitioner's retirement under

Rule 19 cannot be equated with resignation so as to forfeit

qualifying service or extinguish accrued pension rights.

5.1. It is, however, pertinent to observe that in the judgment

delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.

Rakesh Kumar & Others, decided on 30.03.2001, perhaps Rule 49

of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, was not

brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court, and therefore, the

content and import of Rule 49 could not be considered in its

correct spirit. With utmost respect, this Court is of the considered

view that the ratio laid down therein does not represent a

complete exposition of the legal position, as the said provision was

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (11 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

neither argued nor considered in its proper perspective before the

Hon'ble Apex Court. The omission to advert to Rule 49, which

governs the computation and entitlement of pension for those who

retire with more than ten years of qualifying service, renders the

said decision distinguishable and incapable of being applied

mechanically to cases like the present one, where the retirement

is under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, and pensionary benefits

were duly sanctioned at the time of discharge.

5.2 Rule 49 provides for method of calculation of amount of

pension to such government servant. For ready reference,

relevant parts of the Rule 49 CCS (Pension) Rules,1972 for grant

of pension are being reproduced as under-

49. Amount of Pension.

(1) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half months emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service.

(2) (a) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty- three years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of four thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem.

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

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (12 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

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 shall be less than Rupees 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 sub- rule (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 one half-year and reckoned as qualifying service.

(4) ...

This Court when gone through the Rule 49 of the CCS Rules

and finds that as such there is no complete bar in granting

pension to a member who has qualified service of ten years but

retired before completing 33 years of service. Rule 49(2)(b) of the

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, makes it abundantly

clear that where a Government servant retires in accordance with

the provisions of the Rules before completing thirty-three years of

service but after rendering a qualifying service of not less than ten

years, the pension payable shall be proportionate to the amount

admissible under Clause (a) of Rule 49. It further stipulates that

the amount of pension shall in no case be less than Rs. 300 per

month.

5.3 This Court gives due regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court Rakesh Kumar ( Supra); however, since the

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (13 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

factual situation in the present case, as governed by Rule 19 of

the BSF Rules, 1969, stands on a different footing, the said

decision cannot be applied in the present context.

5.4. The expression "qualifying service" has been defined

under Rule 3 (1)(q) of the CCS Rules, which provides that the

period of service rendered while on duty, or otherwise considered

qualifying under the Rules, shall be reckoned for purposes of

determining pension and gratuity.

5.5. In Union of India v. Basheer Bhai R. Khilji (2007) 6

SCC 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically propounded that

the minimum qualifying service required for entitlement of pension

under Rule 49 of the BSF Rules is ten years. The Court further

observed that Rule 49, read conjointly with Rule 38, unequivocally

indicates that a person completing ten years of qualifying service

becomes entitled to proportionate pension, and gratuity too is

determined after completion of ten years of qualifying service.

Thus, even though the pension payable would be proportionate,

the Rule does not impose any complete bar on grant of pension

merely because the service rendered falls short of thirty-three

years.

5.6. A bare perusal of Rule 49 reinforces this legal position, as it

clearly envisages grant of proportionate pension to those who

have completed at least ten years of qualifying service. The issue

has now attained finality and is no longer res integra, the same

having been comprehensively examined by a larger Bench of the

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (14 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v.

Balwan Singh and others (2019) 18 SCC 126 wherein it was

reaffirmed that pension is a deferred right earned through

qualifying service and cannot be arbitrarily withheld once the

statutory threshold of ten years is met. The relevant Para No.5 is

being reproduced as under:-

5. It appears that considerable litigation ensued in respect of both these aspects, on various accounts, inter alia on the issue of the eligibility for pension for persons who had put in 10 years or more of qualifying service, but less than 20 years. All these different issues have been settled in proceedings before the Delhi High Court or before this Court. Suffice to say that there is no controversy now, in view of the judicial pronouncements that there is no embargo in the pension rules that an employee having put in more than 10 years of service but less than 20 years would earn pro rata pension if he avails of the VRS.

As is evident from the communication dated 23.08.2001, the

petitioner's pension had been duly sanctioned and was being

regularly disbursed in accordance with the relevant service

regulations. The said communication clearly reflects that the

petitioner was in receipt of pensionary benefits for a period of

about four years. However, the payment of pension was

subsequently discontinued solely on the ground that, in the case

of Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, certain observations were

made to the effect that a member of the Border Security Force

who resigns from service after completing ten years but before

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (15 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

twenty years of qualifying service would not be entitled to

pension.

5.7. It is significant to note that the respondents themselves have

not disputed the fact that the petitioner had completed more than

ten years of qualifying service before his resignation. The

pensionary benefits had been duly sanctioned after due scrutiny

and were being lawfully disbursed. The abrupt stoppage of

pension payments at a later stage, merely by relying on

subsequent judicial interpretations, is therefore arbitrary and

unsustainable. Such discontinuation is contrary to the mandate of

Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, the settled

position of law governing pension entitlements, and the principles

of equity and fair play.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion and in light of Rule 49(2)

(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the petition is accordingly

allowed. It is held that the Petitioner, having completed more than

ten years of qualifying service prior to his voluntary retirement, is

entitled to proportionate pension and all consequential pensionary

benefits as envisaged under the said Rules.

6.1. The Respondent authorities are directed to restore the

Pension Payment Order No.240559609390/166071 dated

08.08.1996 issued by Central Pension Accounting Office, Govt. of

India , New Delhi forthwith, along with arrears accruing from the

date of its discontinuation i.e order

No.CPAO/A-III/2001-2002/BSF/Vol-2/P-2/ dated 23.08.2001

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47020] (16 of 16) [CW-15135/2021]

issued by the Central Pension Accounting Office, Govt. of India,

New Delhi, and to ensure release of all other admissible

retirement benefits in accordance with law at the earliest

preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this

order and payment of pension to the petitioner shall remain in

continuity as envisaged under the relevant rules.

6.2. The stay petition also stands disposed of.

7. In pursuance of the directions passed in SB Civil Writ Review

No.142/2025, the aforesaid corrected order is uploaded on

20.11.2025.

(FARJAND ALI),J 129-Mamta/-

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)