Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
V.K. Sharma Inspector (Cipher) vs Union Of India on 11 September, 2019
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4340/2019
Isub Ali Khan S/o Shri Kasam Khan, Aged About 57 Years,
Resident Of Village- Chugani, Post- Chhoti Chhapri, Chhapri
Khurd, Didwana, Nagaur-341303
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary To Govt. Of India,
Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi
2. Director General, Border Security Force, Block No. 10, 5Th
Floor, C.g.o. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
3. Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, Border Security
Force, Mandore Road, Jodhpur
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5347/2019
V.k. Sharma Inspector (Cipher) S/o Shri Lt. Surendra Bhushan,
Aged About 56 Years, Sector Hq Bsf Jaisalmer, Old Location
Quarter No 68 Type Ii Jaisalmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Home Ministry Of India,
North Block Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Hq, Dg. Bsf, Force Headquarter, Bsf,
New Delhi.
3. The Inspector General, Bsf, Hq Bsf, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Director, Accounts, Pao Bsf, Pushpa Bhawan, Madangir,
New Delhi.
5. The Additional Director General, (Bsf Comn And It Dte) Cgo
Complex, Fhq, Bsf, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003.
6. Director Deputy Inspector General, Shq, Bsf Jaisalmer,
Ramgarh Road, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Kaushik.
Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narpen Shanker Acharya for
Mr. Sanjeet Purohit.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 11/09/2019 These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioners in service till they attain the age of 60 years as per the directions (Downloaded on 12/09/2019 at 09:04:14 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-4340/2019] of Delhi High Court in the case of Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police & Anr.: WP(C) No.1951/2012, decided on 31.1.2019.
The respondents had appeared on caveat and had sought time to complete their instructions in the matter in view of the fact that the matter was pending consideration before Ministry of Home Affairs regarding implementation of the judgment in the case of Dev Sharma (supra).
Now the respondents have placed for perusal of the Court an order dated 19.8.2019 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs inter alia issuing directions for implementation of judgment in the case of Dev Sharma (supra),whereby, irrespective of rank, the retirement age in BSF has been increased to 60 years.
Further directions as under have been issued:-
"b) Date of effect will be the date of issue of order.
c) In respect of all the 29 petitioners as stated in para-
02 and 03 in common Court order dated 31.01.2019 barring Petitioner No.09 in WP(C) No.4859/2013, relief as granted at Para-72 of the order be extended.
d) As regard those whose date of superannuation fell in between date of judgment and date of issue of order:-
i. Those who have got interim stay will be deemed to have not superannuated and will be governed by age of retirement as at (a) above.
ii. Those who have retired but did not approach any Court will be governed by the Court order dated 04.02.2019 clarifying para-72 of original order dated 31.01.2019 in Dev Sharma case (supra) and hence will be entitled to exercise options either for joining after returning all pensionary benefits, if received or will have an option to have benefit of fitment of pension on completion of age of 60 years.(Downloaded on 12/09/2019 at 09:04:14 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-4340/2019]
03. All Forces are directed to comply with the Court orders narrated as above. Forces may amend provisions of Rules as applicable on above line."
Pursuant to the above order dated 19.8.2019, the Headquarters BSF has issued instructions dated 20.8.2019 for implementation of the judgment / directions of Ministry of Home Affairs.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the order dated 19.8.2019 envisages the cases where the personnel like petitioners had approached the Court and interim orders were granted and those who have retired, but did not approach the Court, however, circumstance like present case, where the petitioners had approached this Court and no interim order was granted is not envisaged and, therefore, the same may be clarified.
The apprehension based on the distinction pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners is apparently misplaced inasmuch as, personnel like petitioners can't be in a worse position than those who did not approach the Court and, therefore, directions as applicable to those who had not approach the Court would apply to the petitioners as well.
In view of the above, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to comply with the requirements of order dated 19.8.2019 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 3-4 Sumit/-
(Downloaded on 12/09/2019 at 09:04:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)