Sri G Janakiram S/O Gurappa vs The Director General Border Security ... on 20 January, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri G Janakiram S/O Gurappa vs The Director General Border Security ... on 20 January, 2009

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

...1.....-...-..u-. mun uvulsl ur uumunman nu.-m uuuuu ur IUIIINAIAKA "*'-""' '-L"'-'3' 9" '°""""'"'"'"' "'5" '3'

IN THE HIGH COURT CF KARNATAKAAT BAN3AI.oR.*a. E f g %  

DATEDTIIIS TIIE 20"' DAY 01? JANUARY2009\/1 4' ii  :17 C 'A M  -

BEFORE   

THE HON'BLEMRJUS1YC'E'S. ABDUL NAzE£:1i'-   * 

ET Pgmrzozv N0.156;'/2003 1&9; '~

Between:

Sri G. Janakiram,
Aged about 57 years,

S/o Gurappa,
Retired Cook No.71 1020629,

R/aNo.1os,3"*cmss,   %%%% M  

5'!' Main, Nagappa Compound,

Bangalore » 560 032.

(By Sri 13.s.Nagaraj, Ap:v;)  
And : V A V

)5

 Force, ' 
_  Affairs,
' V 93y   Division),

""'Bhiw#tk._Ma£ang1r-*--~*' -,

2  Vmxa 13:11:12 1 10 062.



__ ---_ -N...----rues»-n---u

filﬂ ﬂﬂﬂ I I1 KJJUIII Ill' KHKIYRIRRA H39" C.-
uu-nu-up II\f\f.It§ var RIIAIVHIHIUQ I"|ﬂ3I"'I I-J-JUKI UP HFIKNHIRIEA 313$!" E-'JUKI III' NR5 I n V

The Deputy Inspector General,
Head Quarters Malda Sector,
Border Security Force,
Namyanpura. Malda.

West Bengal.

The Joint Assistant Director (Perxsitsaij, « . A 
Oﬁice ofD.G., B.S.F., (M.H.A.)  "
Praﬂy and Accounts division, "
2 Floor, Puspa Bhavan,

Madangir,

New Delhi - 1 10 062.

Thesenior Accounts     '
Govemmentoflndia,  L 
MinistxyofH-rme  _ v_ 'V 
    
Security Force,  . U  _V _ - :3
Pay and  'I)£.visi01§,_ A '  V' '\
Neiv

The mama  
General Pe!l$Vit}£1_z§'-.Gc'G1l1Iti£I.g Ofﬁcer,
Qepazfment bf Expendjimre,

 _ V-'TI'ii]ce;7n1-ILA. ('LAMA Place,

L  Adv.)



"3. ................... ..The learned caunsﬁl   
petitioner aiso submits that he   
backwages provided the reir:st.a;eme1§1".i_§"'ordere:':;'M-*L§i  
the said View of the matter, avsiﬁpetitioiz 'is_V;1'iio§iJecAf;.:'  

The impugned order  7.5.3V93.'V§.. 9A) is":
quashed. The 1;g_§itionéf--  
without baclcwages.  as %ai::2zg;L for
continur_t§{' of 

V ____  V  .    ziéxe)

2. T'he respondenm.V_ % _     1 challetgth g the said
order om:  single Jl1 <'igev in W.A.No.2295/1999, which

"a €.e¢iE" by a%%1)ivisioni3emh cfthis Court on 30.5.2002.

 smremstated intoservice on 25.11.2002

 3.; retired ﬁ'om the service on 28.2.2006,

 'ﬁilumary Retirement Scheme. His pension was ﬁxedon

\;

\.

mmau ass».-ya.-. «mm mm



. "1. _- -..-..uu.-.«-u.a---n -1

5

15.5.2006 (commuted value of pension Rs.1,04,836/- and basic

pension of Rs. 1,9 13/-).

4. Petitioner issued a notice as per A!meX_!1'x'i.-3' .--A4*..':l:'j'~., _  it  
11.10.2007 to revise his pension   

consideration and to pay the balance  the  .

within 30 days from the date of sttid  first
respondem has sent a reply to "at: Annexure 'R1 '
dated 6.11.2007 rejecting   his mm:
servioe from    and 4 months
but a period   w.e.f. 17.5.1989 to
26.1     dismissal to the date of

re1'nstatemem:iis..treatede:i  V'  .«  J leave without pay, which

 treated; as  siervice as per Rule 21 of the CCS

    in the light of the directions issued by the

 W.P.No.25831/1991 dated 2.2.1999. It is

V     to the order in the aforesaid writ petition,

 for continuity of service for the purpose of

it



..- - - -- ,_,,i .. .-.... .....»...... ...m-. uvunl vr munnnunlm mean vyuulu Ur lkﬂltﬂﬂtﬂﬂﬂ Hwrﬁ LUURI Ur MMNHINCA RIGH CI

6

seniority only and not for pensionary beneﬁts. Therefore, petitioner

has filed this writ petition for quashing the order at Annexure g4{ iiiiLk
whereby his pension was fixed after deducting the perio_d;'"t5f'    _
years 6 months and 8 days w.e.tI 7.5.1989 to 26.1 1.2092»   3

the date of dismissal to the date of ii:  * 3

periods while he was in Court's custody; ..

5. Learned Counsel for   that
this Court in W.P.No.2.5831/I:9$'2:'_<ii9;ii,»i;iii1_'iifv_.i:ﬁ:".:2'.§.1999 has
directed 44    ' biickwages. This
Court has   of service.
'Iherefore, tfig fl1_'.':'it1  -justiﬁed in exciuding the

period of 13  6 :"i~$? d§ys for the purpiise of ﬁxing

 petlsiqiii.' Imiiis  has relied on the decisions ofthe
    SING)'-I VS. STA TE or PUNJAB -
J AIR"I9?7Vi.§'C§-'Q5  mi: nrneczron GENERAL, I.C'.MR.

  i/3. n.xi'iviIixfV;e'  -- 2imA11i scwzws.

Ki



_- ..------------- qr-

.----un--ua-sww-: Iuuvrll  III" IUIHIVIGIHIHIK I"II\3I'I EH39"! Ur ﬂH:KI'RiHl\:H I"Il\II'I Cu-VJIIKI III" ﬂﬁiﬁlilllllﬂll l3I\7I"I 'rill-IR! Mil' l\l'|vKl'Il'Ill'\l\l'\ l"ll\7l"l In'

'+

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the    .
has sought to justify the impugned order. lids  1
Court while directing the respondents t<$=:.:;ein%d=dd#:

without backwages has clariﬁed for 3 service for the purpose of seniority of 13 years 6 months and 18 account for the purpose ofﬁxing his pension,-VV~ j} V . V' . .

7. It was dismissed ii-om service on:':?.5.._l9i§9 'é:zd the said order before this Court dow.p.No.2;s::d99g.dd Court by its order dated _v2.2.I999_§fAA!\1d1seeset of his dismissal and has directed backwages. This Court has ﬁmher held , b __ for continuity of service for the purpose of sen'1;4C%z'i.ty*.Liti' words, this Court has not directed the V

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court