http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  928 of 2002

PETITIONER: The Director General, Border Security Force and Ors.

RESPONDENT: Deenamma Sanuel

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J:           Heard learned counsel for the appellants.         Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the  Kerala High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellants.   Challenge in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a learned Single  Judge in O.P. No.4287 of 2000. The High Court relied on some earlier  decisions to hold that a person resigning under Rule 19 of the Border  Security Force Rules, 1969 (in short ‘the Rules’) is entitled to pension if he is  eligible.  The writ appeal was dismissed and the appellants were directed to  dispose of the representation of the respondent  in  the  light  of the judgment referred to i.e. Jos. Vs. Border Security Force (1999 (3) KLT 904).   Relying upon this judgment, the learned Single Judge had directed the  respondents in the writ petition to consider the representation of the  appellant within a stipulated time.           Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent was  not eligible for pension as she had completed only 18 years and three  months of service.  Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in  Civil Appeal No.6166 of 1999 and connected cases, disposed of on  30.03.2001.         This Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:-       \023In the result, there is no substance in the  contention of the learned counsel for the respondents  that on the basis of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension)  Rules or on the basis of G.O., the respondents who  have retired after completing qualifying service of 10  years but before completing qualifying service of 20  years by voluntary retirement, are entitled to get  pensionary benefits.  Respondents who were  permitted to resign from service under Rule 19 of the  BSF Rules 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 are not entitled to get any pension under  any of the provisions  under CCS(Pension) Rules.  Rule 49 only prescribes the  procedure for calculation and quantification of  pension amount.  The G.O. dated 27.12.1995 does not  confer additional right of pension on the BSF  employee.\024                  (Underlined for emphasis)          There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent inspite of service  of notice.         In view of what has been stated by this Court, it is for the appellants to  consider the question of eligibility.  Neither the learned Single Judge nor the  Division Bench decided about the eligibility.  The only direction given was to  consider the representation.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

       It was open to the appellants to reject the representation by deciding  the issue of eligibility.  If the respondent has any grievance to such  rejection, she can take appropriate remedy as available in law.  We,  therefore, dispose of the appeal  holding  that  the  representation be disposed of, if pending within three months after deciding  the  question  of   eligibility.  Needless  to   say  if  the respondent has any grievance,  she can agitate it before an appropriate forum.         The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.