Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010123922023 2026:GAU-AS:13091 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3572/2023 SATYA BRATA DAS SON OF LATE SURENDRA KUMAR DAS, RESIDENT OF MADAN MOHAN APARTMENT, JAIL ROAD, SILCHAR, PIN- 788004, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003. 3:THE DIRECTOR (ACCOUNTS) BORDER SECURITY FORCE PAD BSF PUSPA BHAWAN MADANGIR NEW DELHI- 110062. 4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HQ TRIPURA FRONTIER BSF Page No.# 2/16 PO- SALBAGAN AGARTALA TRIPURA WEST PIN- 799012 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROY, MS. M DUTTA,MRS. A CHAKRABORTY,MR. S K CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR H GUPTA (r-1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 07.09.2026 Heard Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition, has prayed for a re-calculation of the lump sum payment released to him, in lieu of pension, after he had left the services of the Border Security Force (BSF), by submitting a technical resignation for joining as Section Officer in Assam University. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner while working as a Inspector (Auditor), had applied, with due permission of the BSF authorities, for recruitment against the post of Section Officer in Assam University, (Central University, Page No.# 3/16 Silchar). The petitioner on his selection against the post of Section Officer, was offered an appointment vide communication dated 28.09.1994. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted a technical resignation from the post of Inspector (Auditor), BSF, which was accepted on 27.10.1994. The petitioner accordingly, joined against the post of Section Officer, Assam University, Silchar, on 28.10.1994. After submission of his technical resignation and joining in the Assam University, against the post of Section Officer, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.02.1995, before the BSF authorities, inter alia, praying therein, that he would opt to draw pro-rata gratuity and a lump sum amount in lieu of pension worked out with reference to the commutation table applicable on the date of resignation. The said application submitted by the petitioner was processed by the respondent authorities, and upon completion of the requisite formalities including the receipt of medical examination report of the petitioner as mandated, the petitioner was sanctioned lump sum pro-rata pensionary benefit as of 09.06.1998, and the amount involved was forwarded to the petitioner vide a communication dated 17.06.1998. The petitioner had raised a grievance with the respondent authorities of being authorized the lump sum payment, in lieu of pension at a lower stage and further had raised a grievance that the consideration of the petitioner to be a non pensioner upon receipt of lump sum amount by him, would have to be so construed w.e.f., 28.10.1994, for a period Page No.# 4/16 of 15 (fifteen) years. Accordingly, the petitioner had required the respondent authorities to release to him, his normal pension on completion of 15 (fifteen) years w.e.f., 28.10.1994 on 28.10.2009. The respondent authorities, however, did not consider the claim of the petitioner for being authorized the lump sum payment in lieu of pension at a higher stage and with regard to the date from which the petitioner would be entitled to receive his pension, on completion of 15 (fifteen) years, it was held that the petitioner would be entitled to receive his pension after 15 (fifteen) years w.e.f., 09.06.1998, and not from a date prior, thereto. Accordingly, the petitioner was held to be entitled to receive his pension w.e.f., June, 2013, and the petitioner has been authorized his pension w.e.f. June, 2013. The petitioner not being authorized his lump sum payment in lieu of pension at the appropriate stage, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the technical resignation from the post of Inspector (Auditor), submitted by the petitioner, was accepted by the BSF authorities w.e.f. 27.10.1994, and as on that date the petitioner was drawing his salaries in the pre-revised scale of pay. 4.1. Mr. P. K. Roy, submits that w.e.f., 01.01.1996, the Central Government had implemented the recommendation of the 5th CPC. On implementation of the recommendation of the 5th CPC, the pension of the pensioners retiring prior, thereto, Page No.# 5/16 also underwent a revision. The petitioner, on acceptance of his technical resignation from BSF service, was deemed to be a pensioner after 27.10.1994, and accordingly, was entitled to receive pro-rata pension. Mr. Roy, submits that as was permissible, the petitioner had submitted an application for grant of a lump sum amount in lieu of drawal of pension. He submits that such claim made, would result in a 100% commutation of the pension amount being granted to the pensioner and he would thereafter, be held to be a non pensioner for a period of 15 (fifteen), years from the date of grant of such commutation of pension. Mr. Roy, submits that although the petitioner was deemed to have retired from his services and entitled to pro-rata pension w.e.f., 27.10.1994, the monthly pension of the petitioner, was not authorized to him, however, on completion of the requisite formalities, he submits that the petitioner was authorized a lump sum amount, in lieu of pension, on 17.06.1998. 4.2. Mr. Roy, submits that the said lump sum amount was so determined by the respondent authorities as of 09.06.1998. The pension of the petitioner having being revised on the said date, the respondent authorities ought to have reckoned the revised rate of pension now becoming permissible to be drawn by the petitioner while determining the quantum of the lump sum amount, in lieu of pension, required to be released to him. Mr. Roy, submits that the respondent authorities had failed to determine the actual amount receivable by the petitioner and had made the calculation towards determining the lump sum Page No.# 6/16 amount receivable by the petitioner on the pre-revised pension that was receivable by the petitioner as of 28.10.1994. 4.3. Mr. Roy, further submits that on the persuasion made by the petitioner in the matter, the respondent authorities had authorized to him, his monthly pension w.e.f. 28.10.1994, till 08.06.1998, and an amount of Rs.94,527.00 (Rupees Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Seven), was released to him in the month of February 2015. Mr. Roy, by referring to the calculation chart as issued in the matter by the respondent authorities, submits that the respondent authorities for the purpose of computing the monthly arrear pension receivable by the petitioner, w.e.f. 01.01.1996 till 08.06.1998, had made such computation by also reckoning the revised rate of pension that the petitioner was entitled to receive w.e.f. 01.01.1996. He submits that, the respondent authorities ought to have reckoned the revised rate of pension coming into effect w.e.f. 01.01.1996, even for the purpose of computing the lump sum amount required to be authorized to the petitioner, as of 09.06.1998, in lieu of his monthly pension. 4.4. Accordingly, Mr. Roy, submits that the petitioner would now be entitled to have the lump sum payment, in lieu of pension as authorized to him as of 09.06.1998, re-calculated and the arrears amount due to the petitioner in this connection be released to him along with due interest. 5. Per contra, Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC, submit that the Page No.# 7/16 petitioner having submitted his application for receipt of lump sum amount in lieu of pension on 02.02.1995, and the same being permissible to be so computed with reference to the date on which the petitioner was released from the services of BSF on submission of technical resignation i.e., w.e.f. 27.10.1994, it would be the amount of pension receivable by the petitioner as on that day, that would be required to be reckoned for the purpose of release to the petitioner the lump sum amount in lieu of pension. 5.1. Mr. 5.1. Mr. Gupta, submits that the respondent authorities after ascertaining the average emoluments drawn by the petitioner for a period of 10 (ten) months prior to 27.10.1994, had determined the monthly pro-rata pension receivable by the petitioner to be Rs.735.00 (Rupees Seven Hundred Thirty Five) and by applying the commutation factor, in terms of the recommendations of the CPC, had proceeded to determine the lump sum amount as Rs.1,24,362.00 (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two). 5.2. Mr. Gupta, submits that although a delay had occasioned in the matter in release of the lump sum amount to the petitioner, the respondent authorities are not solely responsible for the said delay and the petitioner had also contributed to the said delay occasioning in the matter. Mr. Gupta, has submitted that the petitioner was also released his monthly pension from 28.10.1994 till 08.06.1998. It is further submitted that the petitioner on being granted the commutation Page No.# 8/16 amount of Rs.1,24,362.00 (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two), had become a non pensioner, thereafter, and the petitioner after long lapse of time cannot be permitted to raise any issue with regard to the calculation made by the respondent authorities as of 08.06.1998, towards payment of lump sum amount in lieu of pension, to the petitioner, herein. 5.3. Mr. Gupta, has further submitted that w.e.f. 09.06.2013, the petitioner has been released his due pension on completion of 15 (fifteen) years w.e.f., 09.06.1998. It is further submitted by Mr. Gupta, that no grievance has been raised with regard to the quantum of pension received by the petitioner w.e.f., 09.06.2013. 5.4. In the above premises, Mr. Gupta, submits that the present writ petition in addition to be not maintainable on merits, would mandate a dismissal on the ground of delay and laches. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The facts as noticed, hereinabove, leading to the authorization to the petitioner a lump sum amount in lieu of pension on 09.06.1998, is not disputed. The petitioner, herein, on acceptance of his technical resignation from his service in the BSF, w.e.f., 27.10.1994, was deemed to be a pensioner, and was Page No.# 9/16 entitled to receive pro-rata pensionary benefits. The petitioner vide his representation dated 02.02.1995, by exercising the liberty available to him in this connection, had prayed for permission to draw pro-rata gratuity as well as a lump sum amount in lieu of pension. The said application of the petitioner was processed and after the requisite formalities were so completed, including the medical examination of the petitioner, the respondent authorities vide a communication dated 17.06.1998, had authorized to the petitioner an amount of Rs.1,24,362.00 (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two), as lump sum payment in lieu of regular monthly pension. From the materials brought on record, it is found that the amount required to be authorized to the petitioner as a lump sum payment in lieu of monthly pension, was so determined as of 09.06.1998. The petitioner on receipt of the said amount is found to have approached the respondent authorities for a re-computation of the lump sum amount receivable by him in the matter, inasmuch as, in the meanwhile on the implementation of the 5th CPC recommendation, the pension of the petitioner had undergone an upward revision. The respondent authorities are found to have not considered the said prayer of the petitioner. However, on a persuasion made by the petitioner in the matter, the respondent authorities vide a communication dated 17.03.2015, proceeded to authorize to the petitioner his monthly pension w.e.f., 28.10.1994 to 08.06.1998. The computation made in this connection and the pension amount taken note of was set out in a calculation-sheet appended to the said communication dated 17.03.2015. Page No.# 10/16 8. A perusal of the said calculation-sheet would go to reveal that w.e.f., 01.01.1996, the pension of the petitioner was deemed to be Rs.2241/- (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred Forty One) while prior to that, the same was so deemed to be Rs.735.00. (Rupees Seven Hundred Thirty Five) Accordingly, it is seen that the respondent authorities for the purpose of authorizing to the petitioner his monthly pension, had reckoned the revised pension coming into force w.e.f. 01.01.1996. 9. From the materials brought on record, 02 (two) issues arise for consideration of this Court. (i) As to date from which the petitioner would be entitled to receive his normal pension, after being authorized lump sum payment in lieu of pension. (ii) The further issue that would arise is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for a re-computation of the lump sum payment authorized to him by the respondent authorities in lieu of pension, vide the communication dated 17.06.1998. 10. This Court would consider the first issue at the outset. 11. It is a settled position of law, that a pensioner on being given a lump sum amount, in lieu of monthly pension, such pensioner is held to be a non pensioner for a period of 15 Page No.# 11/16 years from the date on which the said determination of the lump sum amount is made. In the present case, although the petitioner had left his service of the BSF w.e.f. 27.10.1994, it is found that the lump sum amount in lieu of pension that was required to be authorized to the petitioner, was so determined as of 09.08.1996. Accordingly, in view of the settled position of law in this connection, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner would be entitled to his normal pension only on completion of 15 (fifteen) years w.e.f. the date, the determination, with regard to the lump sum required to be paid to the petitioner in lieu of pension, was so made. 12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any error in the respondent authorities authorizing to the petitioner his due pension w.e.f. 09.06.2013. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for being authorized his normal pension upon completion of 15 (fifteen) years w.e.f. 28.10.1994, stands rejected. 13. The above conclusions having been reached, this Court would now examine the second issue, as framed, hereinabove. 14. The petitioner after his technical resignation from the services of BSF, was accepted w.e.f., 27.10.1994, was held to be a pensioner w.e.f. 28.10.1994. Basing on an application submitted by the petitioner in this connection, the respondent authorities had processed the matter for authorizing to the petitioner a lump sum amount in lieu of pro-rata pension. The Page No.# 12/16 respondent authorities had construed 09.06.1998, as the date on which the said lump sum amount was to be so computed in respect of the petitioner, herein. The manner in which the lump sum amount was arrived at, is set out in the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities, the same being relevant is extracted, hereinbelow; “ Calculation of Pension: - (i) Pension of the petitioner was fixed @ Rs.735/- only considering pay drawn by him at the time of leaving service from BSF and existing rules at that time as follows:- · Average Emoluments of last 10 months = 1940/- · Qualifying service = 25 yrs 27 days · Pension = (Average Emoluments x Qualifying service) x 1/66 = (1940 x 25) x 1/66 = Rs.734.84 = Rs.735/- (ii) Pro-rata pension in lieu of pension was calculated considering Commutation = Rs.735/-, Commutation Factor as per 4th CPC= 14.10 (iii) Petitioner opted for 100% commutation of pension and accordingly commutation value was calculated as under:- · Commutation value= (Commutation x Commutation Factor x 12 = 735x14.10x12= 1,24,362/-”. 15. A perusal of the said calculation, would go to reveal that the emoluments for pension was so determined as of 27.10.1994. However, the amount involved, herein, as noticed, Page No.# 13/16 hereinabove, was released to the petitioner only on 17.06.1998, and the determination for the purpose was so made as of 09.06.1998, at the rate of Rs.735.00 (Rupees Seven Hundred Thirty Five), which was determined on the basis of the pre- revised scale. As noticed, hereinabove, after the lump sum payment was authorized to the petitioner, the respondent authorities vide a communication dated 17.03.2015, had proceeded to authorize to the petitioner his arrear of pension w.e.f., 28.10.1994 till 08.06.1998. From the calculation sheet of the pension arrears of the petitioner, it is found that from 28.10.1994 till 31.12.1995, the pension receivable by the petitioner was calculated at the pre-revised rate and the amount of pension was so determined at Rs.735.00 (Rupees Seven Hundred Thirty Five). With effect from 01.01.1996, it is found that till 08.06.1998, the monthly pension receivable by the petitioner was so fixed at Rs.2241/- (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred Forty One) and basing on the said computation, an amount of Rs.94,527.00 (Rupees Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Seven), was released to the petitioner, herein. A perusal of the computation so made in respect of the petitioner with regard to authorization to him of his arrear pension w.e.f., 28.10.1994 till 08.06.1998, this Court finds that w.e.f., 01.01.1996, the pension of the petitioner had admittedly undergone an upward revision, which was also reckoned by the respondents for the purpose of releasing to the petitioner, his arrears of monthly pension. Page No.# 14/16 16. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view, that the respondent authorities, for the purpose of computing the lump sum amount, required to be authorized to the petitioner, in lieu of pension, ought to have reckoned the revised pension as coming into being in respect of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996. This Court from the materials brought on record finds that although, admittedly the pension of the petitioner had undergone an upward revision w.e.f., 01.01.1996, the determination with regard to the lump sum amount required to be authorized, having been so made as of 09.06.1998, the respondent authorities had not factored in the revised pension coming into effect, in so far as the petitioner is so concerned and accordingly, this Court finds that while reckoning the pension value for the purpose of determining the lump sum amount required to be paid to the petitioner, the same was so determined at a lower stage, thereby causing a prejudice to the petitioner. 17. The petitioner is found to have lost out, on the value of the pension he was to receive. The said position is further compounded by the fact that upon being authorized lump sum payment, in lieu of pension, for a period of 15 (fifteen) years, the petitioner would be deemed to be a non pensioner and he would not be entitled to receive any pension and pensionary benefits during the said period. Accordingly, the respondent authorities had to take into account the value of his pension as Page No.# 15/16 on the date, the determination was made for authorization to the petitioner a lump sum amount in lieu of pension. Accordingly, this Court finds that the respondent authorities had not computed the lump sum amount authorized to the petitioner vide communication dated 17.06.1998, in accordance with the pension amount that was permissible to be drawn by the petitioner on the date when such computation was so made i.e. on 09.06.1998. 18. Accordingly, in view of the above position, this Court holds that amount of Rs.1,24,362.00 (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two), received by the petitioner was not the amount he was so entitled to receive and he in view of the upward revision of his pension w.e.f., 01.01.1996, was required to be authorized a higher amount. 19. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, this Court requires the respondent authorities, to re-compute the lump sum amount receivable by the petitioner in lieu of pension, as on 08.06.1998, by also reckoning the revised pension becoming available to the petitioner w.e.f., 01.01.1996. On such computation of the lump sum payment required to be authorized to the petitioner in lieu of pension, the respondent authorities would release to the petitioner the balance amount, in excess of the already authorized amount of Rs.1,24,362.00 (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two) along with interest @ 6% from the date the said amount was due to the petitioner till the date of its actual payment. The Page No.# 16/16 exercise now required to be carried out towards determining the lump sum amount payable to the petitioner in lieu of pension, in terms of the directions passed, hereinabove, be initiated and concluded with the release of the amount, so determined after deducting the amount already paid, along with interest as directed, within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 20. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant