news details |
|
|
| 20 years must for pension: HC | | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Feb 4
A Division Bench of J&K High Court Jammu Wing comprising Chief Justice KS Radhakrishnan and First Pusine Judge Justice NA Kakru have held that 20 years is the qualifying service of the officials to claim pensionary benefits.
In an appeal filed by BSF personnel who had resigned from service before completion of the qualifying service for pensionary benefits, as the appellant had completed only 16 years 7 months and 7 days of service, the Division Bench held that " we cannot find any fault with the competent authority denying pensionary benefits to the appellant since he did not have the requisite qualifying service that would entitled to him to claim the pensionary benefits". That being the facts and the legal situation the single judge has rightly declined the jurisdiction.
This significant judgment written by Chief Justice Radhakrishnan for the Division Bench after hearing Adv Surinder Kour appearing for the appellant and ASGI Mr. VK Magoo appearing for he Union of India observed that the question involved in the case is whether the appellant who has resigned from service under rule 19 of BSF Rules 1969 before completion of the qualifying service for pension, is entitled to reinstatement in service or in the alternative, to the grant of pension? The Single Judge in the impugned order has referred to the facts elaborately. Appellant submitted a letter of resignation on November 15, 1997, at that time he had completed only 16 years 7 months and 7 days of service. His letter of resignation was accepted by the competent authority with full pensionary benefits under rule 19 of the BSF Rules. Later on it was noticed that there was a mistaken impression that a person who had resigned under this rule would get the benefit of pension. Since the rules did not provide for full pensionary benefit to such a person, in such situation the appellant was recalled to join the duties by the authority on November 19, 1998 and he was reinstated in service by order January 1, 1999. The appellant get again submitted a letter of resignation. Though he was not entitled to get pensionary benefits at that time since he had not completed the minimum 20 years of service, yet, with open eyes, he submitted his second letter of resignation which was accepted on February 20, 1999. It was specifically stated in the order that his letter of resignation was accepted without any pension/ benefits and that his name was struck of strength with effects from February 20, 1999.
This appeal was decided within 20 days from the filling of appeal in the High Court and DB after considering all the facts and arguments of the both sides observed that DB is of the view that the contentions raised by the Advocate appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted. With eyes, the appellant had submitted his second letter of resignation and the same was accepted by the competent authority, in such a situation, the appellant would not be entitled to get pensionary benefits, obviously, because the appellant had not completed the requisite numbers of years for claiming such benefits. With these observations DB dismissed the appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
