Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHETAN RAM versus U.O.I.& ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


CHETAN RAM v U.O.I.& ORS - CW Case No. 2107 of 2003 [2005] RD-RJ 1451 (20 September 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR.

ORDER

Chetan Ram & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2107/2003 under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. 20th September, 2005

Date of Order :

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

Mr. I.R.Choudhary, for the petitioner.

Mr. V.K.Mathur, for the respondents.

BY THE COURT :

Petitioner Chetan Ram enrolled with Border

Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "the BSF") on 31.12.1966 as Sepoy and retired from service while holding the post of Constable w.e.f. 31.3.1979.

The respondents by a Pension Payment Order

No.3889(C) authorised petitioner Chetan Ram for getting pension and after his death for family pension to his wife Smt. Laxmi Devi (petitioner No.2). The respondents stopped payment of pension to petitioner

Chetan Ram after the month of August, 2002 in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, reported in 2002(4) SCC 309, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no pensionary benefits can be given to the employees of the BSF until and unless they complete 20 years of service as required to be qualifying service under Rule 19 of the

Border Security Force Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the BSF Rules"). Aggrieved by the same, present petition for writ is preferred by the petitioners.

The primary issue which arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is that as to whether action of the respondents in stopping the payment of pension to the petitioner is illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice?

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to Pension Payment Order No.3889(C) the petitioner was authorised to get pension and he was getting the same since 1979. The same was stopped by the respondents without giving any notice to him and the same has effected rights of the petitioner adversely, therefore, the action is required to be declared illegal being violative of principles of natural justice. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was getting pension from last about 23 years, therefore, the equity requires to relax the necessity of completing qualifying service as provided under Rule 19 of the

BSF Rules.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the

Pension Payment Order No.3889(C) was erroneously issued and the pension was also erroneously paid to the petitioner as the petitioner at the time of retirement worked only for a period of 12 years and 3 months i.e. less than 20 years of qualifying service as prescribed under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules. Counsel for the respondents to substantiate the contention has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar

(supra).

Heard counsel for the parties.

It is the position admitted that the petitioner has not completed qualifying service of 20 years as required under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules.

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

Rakesh Kumar (supra) categorically held that a person is not entitled to claim pension unless he has rendered qualifying service of 20 years. In the present case as the petitioner has not completed 20 years of service, the decision referred above clearly supports the contention as made by the respondents. In view of it I am having no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is not entitled for getting pension under the BSF Rules. I am also not in agreement with counsel for the petitioner that there was no violation of principles of natural justice as on basis of admitted facts the only conclusion on which can be arrived is that the petitioner is not entitled for pension as he has not rendered 20 years qualifying service. The absence of notice, therefore, shall cause no prejudice to the petitioner and call for no interference. The petitioner also failed to point out any provision and even any circumstance warranting to relax the pre-condition of completing qualifying service for getting pension under the BSF Rules.

In view of above discussion the writ petition is devoid of merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.