Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Banwari Lal vs The Union Of India on 20 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15135/2021
Banwari Lal S/o Shri Hansram, Aged About 54 Years, Resident
Of- Village- Gopalpura, Post- Surajgarh, District- Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India, 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. Kshmendra Mathur
Mr. Dinesh Dadhich
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 30/10/2025 (corrected on 20.11.2025)
1. The instant Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to restore the Pension Payment Order No.240559609390/166071 dated 08.08.1996 issued by Central Pension Accounting Office, Govt. of India , New Delhi forthwith, along with arrears accruing from the date of its discontinuation i.e (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (2 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] order No.CPAO/A-III/2001-2002/BSF/Vol-2/P-2/ dated 23.08.2001 issued by the Central Pension Accounting Office, Govt. of India, New Delhi, along with all consequential benefits.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Border Security Force (BSF) on 14.07.1985 as a Constable and, after rendering over a decade of meritorious and unblemished service, rose to the rank of Lance Naik. His request for voluntary retirement was duly accepted on 31.03.1996 under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, framed under the BSF Act, 1968, with entitlement to full pensionary benefits, and a discharge certificate was accordingly issued. Tragically, shortly thereafter, on 14.04.1996, the petitioner suffered a grievous accident resulting in amputation of his right hand and leg, rendering him 100% permanently disabled. Pursuant thereto, pension was initially sanctioned vide Pension Payment Order No.240559609390 dated 08.08.1996; however, it was abruptly discontinued after nearly four years i.e. vide order No.CPAO/A-III/2001-2002/BSF/Vol-2/P- 2/ dated 23.08.2001, on the pretext of a Supreme Court judgment dated 30.03.2001 in SLP No. 6166/1999, to which the petitioner was neither a party nor a beneficiary. Despite repeated representations seeking restoration of his pension or permission to rejoin service to complete any shortfall in qualifying service, the petitioner was declared medically unfit. The abrupt cessation of pension without notice, coupled with denial of gratuity and CGHS medical benefits, caused grave financial hardship and violated the principles of natural justice as well as his right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence the instant Writ Petition.
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (3 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] 2.1. It is recorded that the petitioner's voluntary retirement was accepted under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (framed under the Border Security Force Act, 1968); the request was allowed in "special circumstances" and the discharge certificate on record records that pensionary benefits were sanctioned at the time of retirement (Annexure-1).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned action of the respondents, submits that the denial and subsequent forfeiture of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, who was permitted to retire under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and devoid of statutory sanction. It is urged that there exists no provision under the BSF Rules or the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules authorizing forfeiture or denial of pension to a person who has voluntarily retired under the rules. The action of the respondents, therefore, stands in direct violation of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3.1. It is contended that the term pension, as defined under Article 366(17) of the Constitution of India, encompasses any periodical payment, contributory or otherwise, payable in consideration of past service and includes gratuity and provident fund returns. Pension, being a deferred wage and a vested right, is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace, but a constitutionally protected property right, as held in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, wherein a Constitution Bench unequivocally declared that pension constitutes a social welfare measure and deferred compensation for past service rendered, creating a vested right in the employee.
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (4 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] 3.2. Counsel further submits that the petitioner's voluntary retirement under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules was duly accepted with full pensionary benefits, and his service of over ten years constitutes qualifying service under the prevailing legal regime. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of DTC v. Lillu Ram, (2017) 11 SCC 407, and DTC v. Balwan Singh, (2019) 18 SCC 126, which conclusively affirmed that an employee who has rendered ten years or more of qualifying service is entitled to proportionate pension. It is emphasized that at the time of the petitioner's retirement in 1996, pursuant to the Fourth Pay Commission Notification of 1987, the qualifying service threshold stood at ten years, which fully entitled him to pensionary benefits. 3.3. It is argued that the respondents' reliance on a subsequent circular, issued without authority of law, to withdraw pension retrospectively is ultra vires, arbitrary, and violative of the petitioner's legitimate expectation. The action of discontinuing pension after four years of regular disbursement, without notice or hearing, infringes the principles of natural justice and the petitioner's right to livelihood under Article 21. The arbitrary deprivation of pension and gratuity, both recognized as property under Article 300A, is also constitutionally impermissible. 3.4. Learned counsel further contends that the respondents have adopted inconsistent and discriminatory stands in similarly situated cases. In Ex-Lance Naik Pema Ram's case, the BSF categorically recognized ten years of service as qualifying for pension; in Ex-Lance Naik P.A. Nazar's case, pension was granted after judicial intervention; and in cases of Ct. Ved Singh and (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (5 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] Mohan Ram, pensionary benefits were extended or reinstated under identical circumstances. Conversely, the petitioner's pension has been withheld on the untenable ground of non-completion of twenty years of service, which is contrary to their own precedents and correspondence, including letters dated 10.09.2016, 08.01.1981, and an undated communication from the BSF Pension Section. Such contradictory treatment, it is urged, violates the equality mandate of Article 14 and amounts to hostile discrimination.
3.5. The counsel submits that Rule 19 of the BSF Rules authorizes voluntary retirement "in special circumstances" and only permits reduction of pension in rare cases; it does not contemplate forfeiture of pension under any circumstance. Hence, the respondents' interpretation of the rule is perverse and legally untenable. The deprivation of the petitioner's pension, gratuity, and CGHS medical benefits for over two decades, despite his permanent disability and absence of any misconduct, is manifestly unjust and inhuman. Reliance is placed on U. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka, (2006) AIR SC 2145, wherein the Supreme Court held that pension is a deferred salary and a property right, which cannot be taken away by executive instructions.
3.6. It is further contended that the respondents' actions are antithetical to the principle of equality and fairness as enunciated by the Seven-Judge Bench in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, wherein Article 14 was interpreted as striking at arbitrariness in State action. Denial of pension to the petitioner, (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (6 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] while granting it to identically placed personnel, exemplifies discriminatory treatment and administrative caprice. 3.7. Lastly learned counsel asserts that the right to pension constitutes a continuing cause of action, capable of being enforced at any time post-retirement. The respondents' attempt to recover amounts already paid towards provident fund and leave encashment, as a precondition to reappointment, further aggravates the illegality and violates the petitioner's vested property rights. The impugned action, therefore, being arbitrary, inequitable, and unconstitutional, warrants judicial intervention for restoration of the petitioner's pension, gratuity, medical benefits, and all consequential dues with interest.
4. The respondents, in their counter submissions, have categorically denied the petitioner's averments, asserting that the petitioner had voluntarily tendered his resignation on 26.02.1996 under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, which merely empowers the competent authority to accept a resignation in special circumstances but does not confer any entitlement to pensionary benefits. It is contended that the pension earlier sanctioned to the petitioner was erroneously granted, as he had not completed the mandatory qualifying service of twenty years as required under Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which exclusively govern pension eligibility for BSF personnel. The stoppage of pension, according to the respondents, was carried out in faithful compliance with the binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar & Others (2001) and Union of India v. Raj Kumar & Others (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (7 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] (2006), wherein it was held that personnel resigning before completion of twenty years of qualifying service are not entitled to pension. It is further stated that the petitioner was offered re- induction in accordance with the aforesaid judgments but was found medically unfit due to amputation of limbs. The respondents maintain that there exists no rule, circular, or administrative instruction authorizing the grant of pension to a person who resigns before completing the prescribed qualifying service, and that Rule 19 of the BSF Rules cannot override or supplement the CCS (Pension) Rules. The action taken is therefore asserted to be strictly in accordance with law, consistent with judicial precedents, and free from arbitrariness or illegality; consequently, the petitioner, lacking any vested or enforceable right, cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as no fundamental or statutory right has been infringed.
5. Upon consideration, I have heard learned counsel for both sides, examined the rival contentions, and carefully perused the record as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (supra). The concluding part of para No.16 of the said judgment is being reproduced 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) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 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.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, while interpreting Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, observed that a member who resigns from service after completing more than ten years but less than twenty years of qualifying service would not be entitled to pensionary benefits. However, upon a meticulous examination of the statutory framework, this Court finds that the respondents' reliance on Rakesh Kumar (supra) is misplaced, as the petitioner's case falls under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, which is distinct from resignation simpliciter and carries specific implications concerning pensionary rights. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1969 is being reproduced as under:-
19. Resignation (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the special circumstances of any case, permit any officer of the Force to resign from the Force before the attainment of the age of retirement or before putting such number of years of service as may be necessary under the rules to be eligible for retirement:
Provided that while granting such permission the Central Government may-(i) require the officer to refund to the Government such amount as would constitute the cost of training given to that officer [or three months pay and allowances, whichever is (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (9 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] higher;] or[* * *] [Omitted by S.O. 166, dated 14.1.1998 (w.e.f. 24.1.1998). ] [Provided further that an officer of the Force tendering resignation, for accepting a job under Central or State Governments or local bodies, after having been granted cadre clearance for the same [or who has completed 10 years of service] shall not be required to refund the sum as provided herein-above.] (2) The Central Government may accept the resignation under sub-rule (1) with effect from such date as it may consider expedient.[* * *] [Omitted by S.O. 166, dated 14.1.1998 (w.e.f. 24.1.1998). ] (3) The Central Government may refuse to permit an officer to resign-
(a) if an emergency has been declared in the country either due to internal disturbances or external aggression; or
(b) if considers it to be inexpedient [so to do due to exigencies of service or] [Substituted by S.O. 166, dated 14.1.1998 (w.e.f. 24.1.1998). ] in the interests of the discipline of the Force; or (c) if the officer has specifically undertaken to serve for a specified period and such period has not expired.
(4).The provisions of this rule, shall apply to and in relation to subordinate officers and enrolled persons as they apply to and in relation to any officer of the Force and the powers vested in the Central Government under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be exercised in the case of a subordinate officer by a Deputy Inspector- General and in the case of an enrolled person by a Commandant.
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (10 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] 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 the competent authority to permit a member of the Force to "resign or retire" in special circumstances, and authorizes the grant of pension and other retirement benefits as may be admissible under the rules. The said provision, unlike a simple resignation under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, contemplates a voluntary retirement on compassionate or exceptional grounds and, therefore, does not attract automatic forfeiture of past service. Once such retirement is duly accepted under Rule 19 with sanction of pensionary benefits, it constitutes a voluntary retirement, not a resignation, and the individual continues to remain governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules for purposes of determining pension entitlement under Rule 49 thereof. Hence, the petitioner's retirement under Rule 19 cannot be equated with resignation so as to forfeit qualifying service or extinguish accrued pension rights. 5.1. It is, however, pertinent to observe that in the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar & Others, decided on 30.03.2001, perhaps Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court, and therefore, the content and import of Rule 49 could not be considered in its correct spirit. With utmost respect, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio laid down therein does not represent a complete exposition of the legal position, as the said provision was (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (11 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] neither argued nor considered in its proper perspective before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The omission to advert to Rule 49, which governs the computation and entitlement of pension for those who retire with more than ten years of qualifying service, renders the said decision distinguishable and incapable of being applied mechanically to cases like the present one, where the retirement is under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, and pensionary benefits were duly sanctioned at the time of discharge. 5.2 Rule 49 provides for method of calculation of amount of pension to such government servant. For ready reference, relevant parts of the Rule 49 CCS (Pension) Rules,1972 for grant of pension are being reproduced as under-
49. Amount of Pension.
(1) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half months emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service.
(2) (a) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty- three years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of four thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem.
(b) In case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty-three years, but (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (12 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than Rupees three hundred and seventy-five per mensem.
(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) and Clause (b) the amount of invalid pension shall not be less than the amount of family pension admissible under sub- rule (2) of Rule 54.
(3) In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed one half-year and reckoned as qualifying service.
(4) ...
This Court when gone through the Rule 49 of the CCS Rules and finds that as such there is no complete bar in granting pension to a member who has qualified service of ten years but retired before completing 33 years of service. Rule 49(2)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, makes it abundantly clear that where a Government servant retires in accordance with the provisions of the Rules before completing thirty-three years of service but after rendering a qualifying service of not less than ten years, the pension payable shall be proportionate to the amount admissible under Clause (a) of Rule 49. It further stipulates that the amount of pension shall in no case be less than Rs. 300 per month.
5.3 This Court gives due regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Rakesh Kumar ( Supra); however, since the (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (13 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] factual situation in the present case, as governed by Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, stands on a different footing, the said decision cannot be applied in the present context. 5.4. The expression "qualifying service" has been defined under Rule 3 (1)(q) of the CCS Rules, which provides that the period of service rendered while on duty, or otherwise considered qualifying under the Rules, shall be reckoned for purposes of determining pension and gratuity.
5.5. In Union of India v. Basheer Bhai R. Khilji (2007) 6 SCC 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically propounded that the minimum qualifying service required for entitlement of pension under Rule 49 of the BSF Rules is ten years. The Court further observed that Rule 49, read conjointly with Rule 38, unequivocally indicates that a person completing ten years of qualifying service becomes entitled to proportionate pension, and gratuity too is determined after completion of ten years of qualifying service. Thus, even though the pension payable would be proportionate, the Rule does not impose any complete bar on grant of pension merely because the service rendered falls short of thirty-three years.
5.6. A bare perusal of Rule 49 reinforces this legal position, as it clearly envisages grant of proportionate pension to those who have completed at least ten years of qualifying service. The issue has now attained finality and is no longer res integra, the same having been comprehensively examined by a larger Bench of the (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (14 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Balwan Singh and others (2019) 18 SCC 126 wherein it was reaffirmed that pension is a deferred right earned through qualifying service and cannot be arbitrarily withheld once the statutory threshold of ten years is met. The relevant Para No.5 is being reproduced as under:-
5. It appears that considerable litigation ensued in respect of both these aspects, on various accounts, inter alia on the issue of the eligibility for pension for persons who had put in 10 years or more of qualifying service, but less than 20 years. All these different issues have been settled in proceedings before the Delhi High Court or before this Court. Suffice to say that there is no controversy now, in view of the judicial pronouncements that there is no embargo in the pension rules that an employee having put in more than 10 years of service but less than 20 years would earn pro rata pension if he avails of the VRS.
As is evident from the communication dated 23.08.2001, the petitioner's pension had been duly sanctioned and was being regularly disbursed in accordance with the relevant service regulations. The said communication clearly reflects that the petitioner was in receipt of pensionary benefits for a period of about four years. However, the payment of pension was subsequently discontinued solely on the ground that, in the case of Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, certain observations were made to the effect that a member of the Border Security Force who resigns from service after completing ten years but before (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (15 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] twenty years of qualifying service would not be entitled to pension.
5.7. It is significant to note that the respondents themselves have not disputed the fact that the petitioner had completed more than ten years of qualifying service before his resignation. The pensionary benefits had been duly sanctioned after due scrutiny and were being lawfully disbursed. The abrupt stoppage of pension payments at a later stage, merely by relying on subsequent judicial interpretations, is therefore arbitrary and unsustainable. Such discontinuation is contrary to the mandate of Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, the settled position of law governing pension entitlements, and the principles of equity and fair play.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion and in light of Rule 49(2)
(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the petition is accordingly allowed. It is held that the Petitioner, having completed more than ten 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.
6.1. The Respondent authorities are directed to restore the Pension Payment Order No.240559609390/166071 dated 08.08.1996 issued by Central Pension Accounting Office, Govt. of India , New Delhi forthwith, along with arrears accruing from the date of its discontinuation i.e order No.CPAO/A-III/2001-2002/BSF/Vol-2/P-2/ dated 23.08.2001 (Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47020] (16 of 16) [CW-15135/2021] issued by the Central Pension Accounting Office, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and to ensure release of all other admissible retirement benefits in accordance with law at the earliest preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and payment of pension to the petitioner shall remain in continuity as envisaged under the relevant rules. 6.2. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
7. In pursuance of the directions passed in SB Civil Writ Review No.142/2025, the aforesaid corrected order is uploaded on 20.11.2025.
(FARJAND ALI),J 129-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 12:56:35 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 10:47:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)