JUDGMENT
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.
1. Heard Mr. V.V. Suresh, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellants/respondents in the Original Petition and Mr. N. Nandakumara Menon for the respondent/petitioner. By consent of both parties, both the Writ Appeal and the Original Petition are taken up for final disposal.
2. The Writ Appeal is directed against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge pending Original Petition granting an interim direction as prayed for by the petitioner. The learned Judge directed the appellants-respondents to disburse to the respondent-petitioner pensionary benefits sanctioned as per Ext. P1 order pending disposal of the Original Petition.
3. The Original Petition was filed by the respondent-petitioner to direct the appellants-respondents to disburse to him the pensionary benefits sanctioned as per Ext. P1 order together with interest. It is the case of the respondent-petitioner that he was enrolled in the Border Security Force (for short ‘the BSF’) as an office orderly in May, 1970 at the Office
of the Deputy Inspector General of BSF, Baramulla. In 1971 he was remustered and transferred to 43 B BSF Singapura as a Constable. Later, he was discharged from service on his request while working as Cipher/Head Constable at the Office of the Deputy Inspector General, BSF, Ahmedabad. At the time of discharge, he had put in 10 years 8 months and 3 days of qualifying service with the BSF. He was discharged from the BSF with effect from 24.1.1981. His resignation was accepted by the Headquarters with effect from 24.1.1981 vide their order No. D.V.I./SIG/81/1106-13 dated 24.1.1981. However, the pensionary benefits were not given to the respondent-petitioner at the time of his resignation from the BSF. Since he was eligible to draw the full pensionary benefits on account of the satisfactory service put by him in the BSF, he made a representation before the second respondent i n the OP for grant of full pensionary benefits as admissible under the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’). The second respondent reviewed the order dated 24.1.1981 and allowed the petitioner to draw full pensionary benefits as admissible under the Rules with effect from 24.1.1981, namely, the date of discharge. Ext. P1 is the order passed by the second respondent.
4. We have perused Ext. P1. Ext. P1 was passed by the Joint Assistant Director (ADM), Headquarters to the Joint Assistant Director (A/Cs) Pay and Accounts Division, BSF, New Delhi dated 19.2.1997. In view of the review, the petitioner was allowed to draw full pensionary benefits as admissible under the Rules with effect from 24.1.81. As directed, the Central Government Standing Counsel has placed before us the relevant file. We have perused the file. The communication dated 27.12.1995 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs relates to grant of pensionary benefits on resignation under Rule 19 of the Rules. A reference to Rule 19(1) of the Rules is made in the above communication. The said Rule provides that the competent authority may, having regard to special circumstances of a case, permit a member of the Force to resign from the Force before attainment of the age of retirement or before putting in such number of years of service as may be necessary under the Rules to be eligible for retirement. The authority competent to grant such permission is also empowered to make such reductions in the pension or other retiremenl benefits of a member of the Force, if so eligible, as it may consider just and proper in the circumstances ‘of’ the case. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 19 of the Rules and based on the approval of the MHA, the authorities were directed to accept the resignation of a member of the Force specifying the reduction to be made in the pension, if any, as per the provisions contained in proviso (ii) to Rule 19(1) of the Rules. It is further mentioned that in case no such reduction is specified in the order regarding acceptance of resignation, it would imply that no reduction in the pension has been made. The authorities concerned were directed to undertake a thorough review of all the pending cases. The other communication referred to in Ext. P1 is dated 8.2.1997 which is the order by the Headquarters Gujarat Sector BSF Gandhinagar. In the above communication, the review order dated 27.12.1995 by the competent authority has also been referred to. The above order reads thus:
“In pursuance to FHQ (Pers Dts) Letter No. 24/1/95-Pers/BSFdated 27.12.1995, Competent Authority is pleased to review this HQ Order No. D.V.I./SIG/81/ 110-13 dated 24.01.81 regarding acceptance of resignation notice, served by No. 700005086 HC/CIPH P.K. Surendran Nair of this HQ w.e.f. 24.1.81 and allow him to draw pensionary benefits under Rule 19 of BSF Rules, 1969.
Thus, No. 700005086 GC/CIPH P.K. Surendran Nair is allowed to draw the full pensionary benefits under the said Rule w.e.f. 24.01.81.”
It is seen from the above communication that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted,
his case was reviewed and he was allowed to draw full pensionary benefits under Rule 19 of the Rules.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the appellants-respondents, they have taken a stand that no pensionary benefits was granted to the respondent-petitioner while accepting his resignation since there is no such provision exists under the Rules. They also denied the contention of the petitioner that he was discharged from service. According to them, the petitioner had tendered a notice seeking resignation due to his personal problems and on considering his case sympathetically, his resignation was accepted by the DIG, BSF, Gujarat with effect from 24.1.1981. It is also stated that there are no separate pension rules in the BSF Act and Rules. It is also stated that while accepting his resignation, his case was reviewed and allowed the petitioner to draw full pensionary benefits. According to the appellants, this order was issued due to wrong interpretation of the Rules/Instructions. It is further stated in the counter that no pension has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner with effect from 24.1.1981 for the service rendered by him. Only his pension papers were forwarded to JAD (Accounts) which too was due to wrong interpretation of Rules/instructions. According to them, referring pension case to an authority does not mean that pension has been sanctioned.
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side. A perusal of Ext. P1 and the communications referred to therein clearly go to show that the case of the petitioner was reviewed by the Headquarters and he was allowed to draw full pensionary benefits as admissible under the Rules with effect from 24.1.1981 by the competent authority. We have already referred to the three relevant communications. There is no dispute that the review order was forwarded to the Joint Assistant Director (A/Cs), New Delhi for the purpose of early settlement of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner and not to cancel the order passed and the decision taken by the Headquarters. It is not in dispute that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the appellants-respondents and, therefore, he is entitled to draw full pension on account of the qualifying service rendered by him. The second respondent in the OP had also sanctioned full pension to the petitioner with effect from 24.1.1981. Only thing which remains to be done is the disbursement of pensionary benefits to the petitioner and nothing else.
7. As held by the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130=1983(1) SLJ 131 (SC) pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for the service rendered in the past. In the said case, the Supreme Court held that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and it creates a vested right subject to the statutory restrictions. The petitioner has been sanctioned full pension for the service rendered by him in the BSF in accordance with Rule 19 of the Rules. There can be no legal impediment for disbursing the pensionary benefits sanctioned to the petitioner as per Ext. P1. It is only due to the latches on the part of the third respondent that the pensionary benefits legally due to the petitioner is not so far disbursed.
We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Appeal filed by the respondents in the Original Petition and allow the Original Petition. The entire arrears of pensionary benefits due to the petitioner shall be disbursed to him within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment either from this Court or on production of the same by either side; whichever is earlier. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.