Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: bsf act in Uoi & Ors vs B.N.Chaubey & Ors on 23 March, 2026Matching Fragments
Letter dated 19.09.1989 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs:
I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the combatisation of ministerial and other civilian posts in the headquarters of the Dte. General Border Security Force (including Pay and Accounts Division, (illegible) Centre, Airwing and other wings/cells) and BSF Hospitals under BSF ACT, 1968 and BSF Rules, 1969 with immediate effect subject to the following terms and conditions :-
17. It is only by examining these elements in their proper perspective that we may discern the true character of the post in question and determine the age of superannuation that lawfully attaches to it.
18. At the outset, we may highlight that the BSF is not merely a department of the Government; it is an armed force of the Union constituted and regulated under a special statute, the BSF Act, 1968, with the BSF Rules, 1969 providing a complete code for the discipline, ranks, promotions and superannuation of its combatised members.
23. Therefore, once such transformation of the cadre was effected with Sanction of 1989, the very stream of maintenance posts into which the Respondent have flowed was re-channelled by the President into the combatised regime of the BSF Act and Rules. Accordingly, the legal character of the said posts and of „all future appointments‟, thereto stood altered and were to be treated as appointment to combatised ranks, unless a contrary decision by the Government specifically preserved them as civilian positions. However, no such contrary decision has been brought to the notice of this Court by the Respondent.
27. Therefore, in substance, the Respondent stood in the shoes of a combatised BSF officer, he marched the drum of the BSF Act and Rules and did not tread the quieter path of civil establishment. Accordingly, the Respondent cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate to accept the benefits of a particular service regime while repudiating its burden, since service jurisprudence demands consistency of status, not opportunistic oscillation between cadres.