Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In reply, it has been pointed out that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as there is inordinate and unexplained delay of 30 years. The petitioner resigned from ITBP on 31.08.1976, whereas the writ petition has been filed in March, 2006. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Lt. Col. Balwant Singh v. Union of India 2003(3) Services Law Reporter 627. It is also pointed out that in terms of 1972 Pension Rules, on resignation from a service or a post, the past service stands forfeited and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pension. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not completed 20 years of qualifying service and, thus, he is not entitled to pension under Rule 48-A of 1972 Pension Rules and that the provisions of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred as "ITBP Act") and the rules framed thereunder are not applicable in view of Section 157 of the ITBP Act as the petitioner was not in the strength of ITBP when the aforesaid Act came into force.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Section 8 of ITBP Act and Rule 27 of the ITBP Rules. The said Act and the Rules came into force in the year 1992, whereas the petitioner resigned in the year 1976. Section 8 of the Act prohibits any resignation by a member of the force. However, under Rule 27, with regard to special circumstances, a member of the force can be permitted to resign before completing the term of engagement. Therefore, the said Act and Rules cannot be relied upon by the petitioner.

6. Reliance by the petitioner on the judgment in Raj Kumar v. Union of India is not tenable. The Rule discussed in the aforesaid case was Rule 19 of Border Security Force Rules, 1969 wherein an amendment was carried out on 27.12.1995 so as to grant pension to a member of the force who resigned from the force before attainment of the age of retirement. However, in the present case, it is 1972 Pension Rule which are applicable. The ITBP Act and the Rules framed under the said Act came into force in the year 1992, whereas the petitioner has submitted his resignation in 1976 and at that time his service conditions were governed by the aforesaid 1972 Pension Rules. Therefore, judgment in the case of members of the BSF does not provide any assistance to the petitioner. Similarly, Division Bench judgment of this Court is also in respect of the members of BSF which, as mentioned above, stands on a different footings.