Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Dipty Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 February, 2020

Author: Amrita Sinha

Bench: Amrita Sinha

                                           1


   16
04.02.2020.
   d.p.
                                     W.P. 17495 (W) of 2019


                                          Dipty Singh
                                            -versus
                                      Union of India & Ors.


                        Ms. Sima Ghosh.
                                               ...For the Petitioner.

                        Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shah.
                                         ...For the UOI.


                    The petitioner was a member of the Border Security Force.
              He was in service for 23 years 5 months and 15 days.


                    Pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him,
              he was summarily dismissed from service and all his pensionary
              benefits were forfeited in terms of Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension)
              Rules, 1972.


                    Rule 24 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972
              reads as follows:-
                    "Dismissal or removal of a government servant from service
              or a post entails forfeiture of his past service."


                    The respondents have applied the Rule and have forfeited the

pensionary benefits which according to the petitioner was due and payable to him.

The petitioner submits that the final order of punishment does not mention that he will not be entitled to get pensionary 2 benefit. Accordingly, he ought to be paid pension as he served for more than 23 years.

Admittedly, the petitioner is governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 as there is no separate provision for grant of pension under the Border Security Force Act and the members of the Border Security Force are covered by the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 for Service and Pensionary Benefits. Rule 24 deals with the forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal. The petitioner being dismissed from service is not entitled to the pensionary benefits as prayed for.

The petitioner submits that he will be governed by the Army Rules and not the CCS (Pension) Rules. The said contention of the petitioner is not accepted by the Court. The petitioner being the member of the Border Security Force is not entitled to be governed by the Pension Rules of the Army.

In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

WP 17495 (W) of 2019 stands dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

( Amrita Sinha, J.)