Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Banwari Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 20 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:50338]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 142/2025
Banwari Lal S/o Shri Hansram, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of
Village Gopalpura, Post Surajgarh, District- Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, 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. Kshamendra Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 20/11/2025
1. The matter comes up on review petition for the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15135/2021.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's Civil Writ Petition No. 15135/2021 was allowed on 30.10.2025, directing grant of all pensionary and consequential benefits, and that the judgment clearly recognized the petitioner's entitlement to pension upon (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 01:00:35 PM) (Downloaded on 24/11/2025 at 08:55:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50338] (2 of 3) [WRW-142/2025] retirement under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules read with Rule 49 of the CCS Pension Rules, though an inadvertent omission of explicit reference to Rule 49 at page 10 has created ambiguity, which may be clarified by approprietly mentioning of the same in the order. It is contended that as a matter of fact the same would be in consonance with the intent of the decision of the court. It is urged that doing the above would make the order more comprehensive.
3. A copy of the same has been supplied to the learned counsel, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, appearing for the respondent. He agreed with the proposition that, indeed, during the hearing of the petition, consideration had been given to the combined reading of Rule 19 of the BSF Rules and Rule 49(2)
(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Therefore, to understand paragraph 5 at page 10, it would be more appropriate doing so.
4. Heard.
5. Upon examining the matter in light of the submissions advanced, this Court has revisited the record, refreshed its recollection, and cross-checked the relevant portion with the stenographer's diary. It stands revealed that the dictated text--specifically the reference to "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" at the paragraph 5 on page 10, was inadvertently omitted during transcription from Pitman (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 01:00:35 PM) (Downloaded on 24/11/2025 at 08:55:26 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50338] (3 of 3) [WRW-142/2025] shorthand. Considering the context of that paragraph, wherein both resignation under Rule 19 and entitlement to pension under Rule 49(2)(b) were simultaneously under discussion, the omission is manifestly a clerical error apparent on the face of the record. In the interest of justice, the review petition thus merits acceptance to rectify the said inadvertence.
6. Accordingly, the instant review petition is allowed. It is directed that at page 10 in para no 5 of the order 30.10.2025 instead of "Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, framed under the BSF Act, 1968, empower....." the same is edited as "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...", shall be substituted and this edited part shall be considered as the part of the order aforesaid.
7. In order to avoid any ambiguity or anomaly arising from the said clerical omission, and in the interest of justice, thus the original order dated 30.10.2025 is directed to be off-loaded, instead the corrected order dated 20.11.2025 be now uploaded afresh. The hard copy of the original order dated 30.10.2025 be kept as "D" part in SB Civil Writ Petition No.15135/2021.
(FARJAND ALI),J 23-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 01:00:35 PM) (Downloaded on 24/11/2025 at 08:55:26 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)