HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 49052 of 2000 Court No. - 34 Sl. No. 20 HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Bhriguji Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 20.06.2000 passed by respondent no. 4 whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits due to his resignation from service voluntarily in the year 1984 has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Border Security Force on 22.10.1973. The petitioner had submitted an application for resignation from service on 13.09.1984 on the ground of his family circumstances, i.e. death of his brother, old-aged parents and no male member available in the family to look after his family. Thereafter, as per the procedure on 29.09.1984 the petitioner was interviewed and explained the consequences of such resignation. Thereupon, on his insistence the said resignation was accepted on 29.09.1984 and it was provided that his resignation will come into effect from 01.10.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved and discharged from service and he came back to his village. Thereafter, the petitioner in the year 1985 made attempts to re-enlistment his service in the BSF. The Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gyanendra Kumar Singh, J.P. Rai, Neeraj Tiwari, T.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arvind Kumar Goswami, M.I. Khan, Mansoor Ahmad, Nagendra Kumar Pandey, S.C. Mishra, S.S.C. Ex. Constable Bacha Lal Singh .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And Others .....Respondent(s) aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was rejected on 12.02.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner kept silent for about 15 years and then raised the issue with regard to grant of pensionary benefits to him in the year 2000 and the claim of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit was rejected by the impugned order dated 20.06.2000 on the ground that in the interview he was explained that he will not be able to get any service benefit including the pensionary benefits after his resignation, therefore, there is no occasion for reconsideration for grant of the pensionary benefit, as prayed for by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20.06. 2000 the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner herein. 4. Relying upon Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 the petitioner claims that since the petitioner has already completed 10 years 11 months and 10 days service before his resignation he is entitled for the pensionary benefits as well. The aforesaid claim of the petitioner has been resisted on behalf of the respondents that in the BSF since heavy amount and time is spent on training of a constable such constables and employees and the officers of BSF cannot be permitted to resign at their own will and minimum period has been kept as 20 years to permit a person to resign to make him entitled for the benefit of pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was denied. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Union of India versus Basirbhai R. Khilji (2007) 6 SCC 16 and submits that after completion of 10 years' service the petitioner is entitled for pension as has been held in the case of Basirbhai (supra). He has further relied upon the judgment of the Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15135 of 2021 (Banwari Lal versus Union of India) dated 30.10.2025 wherein relying upon Rule 49 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court has held that the petitioner who has completed 10 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. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of WRIA No. 49052 of 2000 2 Apex Court in Union of India versus Rakesh Kumar and another (2001) 4 SCC 309 as well as the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India versus Madhu E.V. and another, (2012) 06 ADJ 65 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the person who has completed 10 years service and has resigned before completing 20 years of service in BSF is not entitled for pensionary benefits and in the said judgment the Apex Court the Apex Court has categorically held that Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 only prescribes the method / procedure for calculation of pension amount and not the minimum qualifying service. In Union of India v. Surendran Nair AirOnline 2001 SC 532 also the Apex Court has held that the a person who resigned before completion of 20 years of service is not entitled for pensionary benefits. 7. In Rakesh Kumar (supra) the Apex Court has observed in paragraph 16 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." 8. In Surendra Nair (supra) the Apex Court has considered the Rules 35, 36, 48, 48A and 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and has held that if a government servant voluntarily retires after completion of 20 years qualifying service in terms of Rule 48A after giving three months' notice would be entitled for the pensionary benefits, but not before that. 9. Likewise, in Madhu E.V. (supra) the Apex Court has observbed in paragraphs 10,11,12,13 and 14 as under: "10. In a later decision in the case of Raj Kumar and others v. Union of India and another, (2006) 1 SCC 737 : (AIR 2006 SC 938 : 2006 AIR WRIA No. 49052 of 2000 3 SCW 307), this Court was again concerned with the similar question. This Court referred to the earlier decision of this Court in Union of India and others v. Rakesh Kumar, (AIR 2001 SC 1877 : 2001AIR SCW1458) (supra) and reiterated the position that was declared in Union of India and others v. Rakesh Kumar (supra), namely, that Rule 19 of the BSF Rules did not grant any right to pension in cases where pension was not payable under the CCS (Pension) Rules. In para 17 of the report, the Court catalogued the cases before it as follows: "17. (A) Pre-circular. Personnel who resigned and were granted pension for special reasons, even prior to the circular dated 27-12-1995. (B) Post-circular. Personnel who resigned pursuant to the circular dated 27-12-1995. These persons can be further divided into two sub- categories. (i) Personnel who retired in 1996, were sanctioned pension and were therefore asked vide letter dated 31-10-1998 not to report for reinduction. Their pension has been stopped pursuant to the judgment in Rakesh Kumar (supra). These persons can be further divided into two sub- categories: (a) those who are in a position to be reinducted into service even now; and (b) those who cannot be reinducted into the service as a result of being age-barred or due to being medically or physically unfit. (ii) Those who retired subsequent to 1996, were not sanctioned pension, and were directed to report for reinduction into service or to forfeit pension benefits by virtue of the circular dated 17-10-1998 and the individual letters.". 11. Having regard to the peculiar facts arising in each of the above groups, this Court made the following orders: "1. The personnel falling in category (B)(ii) i.e. those persons who had retired subsequent to 1996 pursuant to the circular dated 27-10-1995 and had not been sanctioned pension, but who have been directed to report for reinduction in service shall necessarily have to forfeit their pension, if they have not reported for service by virtue of the circular dated 17-10- 1998. If, however, they have reported for service then there is no question of any relief in their case. WRIA No. 49052 of 2000 4 2. In the case of persons falling in category (B)(i), they shall also be given the option of reinduction into service, and those falling in category (B)(i)(a) shall be so reinducted, subject to the conditions stipulated in the circular dated 17-10-1998 and on condition that they shall refund GPF and pension amounts drawn by them till reinduction. The authorities shall indicate the deadline by which such persons shall offer themselves for reinduction. 3. In the case of persons who shall fall in category B(i)(b) i.e. persons who had retired in 1996, were sanctioned pension but who cannot be reinducted today as they are age-barred or physically or medically unfit or for any other reason including their inability to return the amount of GPF, pension drawn or other dues, there shall be no question of continuing payment of pension which shall be liable to cease as a result of the decision in Rakesh Kumar (supra). We are however of the view that equity demands that in such cases there shall be no recovery of the pension amounts already paid to them. 4. In cases which fall under category (A) i.e. personnel who had resigned prior to the circular dated 27-12-1995 and had been granted pension for special reasons and continued to draw it till the stoppage of pension as a result of the judgment in Rakesh Kumar (supra) we think that irrespective of the position in law, equity demands that, as they have drawn their pension for long periods, they shall not be asked to refund their drawn pension amounts, nor shall their pension be stopped now." 12. In view of the decisions of this Court in Union of India and others v. Rakesh Kumar, ( AIR 2001 SC 1877: 2001 AIR SCW 1458) (supra) and Raj Kumar and others v. Union of India and another, (AIR 2006SC 938: 2006 AIR SCW 307) (supra), the legal position that emerges is this Rule 19 of the BSF Rules does not entitle any pensionary benefits on resignation of its personnel. The pensionary benefits are not ordinarily available on resignation under CCS (Pension) Rules since Rule 26 provides for forfeiture of service on resignation. However, by virtue of G.O. dated December 27, 1995 read with Rule 19 of BSF Rules, the member of BSF would be entitled to get pensionary benefits if he is otherwise eligible. Such personnel must, therefore, satisfy his eligibility under CCS (Pension) Rules. The CCS (Pension) Rules do not provide that a person who has resigned before completing 20 years of service is WRIA No. 49052 of 2000 5 entitled to the pensionary benefits. Rule 49 only prescribes the procedure for calculation and quantification of pension amount and not the minimum qualifying service. 13.The view taken by the single Judge and judgment of the Division Bench upholding the view taken by the single Judge cannot be upheld and have to be set aside in light of the legal position noted above. 14. In the present case, the respondents had resigned from BSF service immediately after completion of 10 years service and, therefore, they are not entitled to any pensionary benefits." 10. The case of Basirbhai R. Khilji (supra) is entirely different. That was not the case of voluntary retirement or resignation on the part of the government servant or the member of the force but that was the case of discharge from service as the member of the force became invalid due to impairment of both his ears and for which entirely a different principle will apply. 11. In view of the aforesaid settled view of the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, as noted hereinabove, no case for grant of pension as prayed for in the instant petition by the petitioner is made out as admittedly the petitioner has not completed 20 years of qualifying service. 12. Further, there is a delay and laches of about 15 years on the part of the petitioner in the instant case. Accordingly, the instant petition is also not entertainable after 15 years of unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner and it is admitted case that the petitioner has not challenged the order accepting his resignation nor he has challenged the order rejecting his application for re-enlistment as prayed by the petitioner later. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. September 23, 2026 o.k. WRIA No. 49052 of 2000 6 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad