JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. As the facts and the issues arising for my consideration in these writ petitions are similar I propose to dispose of all these writ petitions by this common judgment/order.
2. The main grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is against non-payment of the salary for the period between the release of the petitioners from service to the date of rejoining the services by them. In some of these petitions the petitioners have also prayed for an alternative relief claiming for payment of pensionary benefits from the date of their discharge from service. The petitioners while working in the Border Security Force submitted their resignation from services under Rule 19(1) of Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The respondents accepted the said resignations consequent to which the petitioners were also discharged from service. After being released the petitioners requested for payment of their pensionary benefits on resignation under Rule 19 of the Rules. The respondents considered the said request of the petitioners and by a communication issued by the respondents intimated each of the petitioners that the pension case of the petitioners relating to resignation under Rule 19(i) of the Rules was decided by the Competent Authority. It was further intimated that pursuant to the said decision no pension could be granted to the petitioners as they had served Border Security Force for less than 20 years of service.
3. It was further stated that their period of absence i.e. from the date of their release pursuant to their resignation to the date of their rejoining could be regularised as earned leave or half pay leave due and that remaining period would be regularised by granting extraordinary leave. It was also mentioned that if they rejoin their duty in terms of the aforesaid intimation they would have to refund general provident fund and other dues but they would retain their seniority. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication sent by the respondents the petitioners accepted the aforesaid offer and rejoined their duties, upon which the respondents allowed the petitioners to rejoin duties. But their period of absence was accordingly regularised in terms of the communication dated 24.10.1998, being aggrieved by which the present writ petitions are preferred.
4. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents accepted the resignations of the petitioners with the clear stipulation that the pensionary benefit would be paid to them and therefore, when the respondents resoled from the said assurance and directed the petitioners to rejoin duties petitioners are entitled to get full salary and allowances for the period during which they were denied the opportunity to work and that the aforesaid absence could not be attributed as fault of the petitioners.
5. So far the claim of some of the petitioners for grant of relief for lease of pensionary benefits to the petitioners from the date of their discharge from service is concerned, the same now stands decided by the Supreme Court in four Civil Appeals, the lead case of which is titled as Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, . Their lordships of the Supreme Court while disposing of the said appeals observed that on the basis of G.O. a number of persons were granted pensionary benefits even though they had not completed 20 years of service and that for grant of pension the members of the Border Security Force are governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules which nowhere provide that a person who has resigned before completing 20 years of service as provided in Rule 48-A is entitled to pensionary benefits and that Rule 19 of the BSF Rules also does not make any provisions for grant of pensionary benefits. It was further held by the Supreme Court that no person can claim any right on the basis of the decision which is de hors the statutory rules nor there can be any estoppel and therefore, the employees who had retired or resigned after completing qualifying service of 10 years but before completing qualifying service of 20 years by voluntary retirement, are not entitled to any pension. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is therofre, clear and categoric. By virtue of the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court the petitioners who had resigned from the service before completing the statutory period of service are not entitled to get any pension.
6. So far the relief for grant of full pay and allowances for the period from the date of their release after acceptance of the resignation till the date of rejoining is concerned the said period has been regularised by the respondents in accordance with the extant leave rules in terms of which the period of absence has been treated as earned leave/half pay leave as due and the remaining period as extraordinary leave. However, all the petitioners have been granted continuity in service.
7. When the respondents took a decision that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of pensionary benefits as they had not completed the statutory qualifying service of 20 years an option was given to the petitioners to rejoin their duties but the said offer was made conditional that they would be allowed to rejoin with continuity in service but eh period of their absence shall be regularised in accordance with the criteria laid down in the said offer. The petitioners accepted the said condition and rejoined their duties without any protest or demur for imposing the said conditions for rejoining. The petitioners also did not work for the aforesaid period and the respondent was deprived of getting any work from the petitioners during the entire period. The respondents have adopted the policy of ‘no pay for no work’ i.e. a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period for which he did not perform his duties. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the plea of waiver and estoppel is definitely applicable to the cases in hand. The Supreme Court in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah v. Union of India, 1989 (2) SLR 202 has held that there has to be no pay for no work i.e. a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period for which he did not perform the duties of higher post, although after due consideration, he was given a proper place in the gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. It was held that the said employee would be entitled to only to step up the scale of pay retrospectively from the deemed date but is not entitled to the payment of arrears of salary. The same ratio was reiterated in Virender Kumar v. Avinash Chandra Chadha, (1990) 3 SCC 482 and State of Haryana and Ors. etc. v. O.P. Gupta, etc., 1996 (2) SLR 466.
8. The period of absence of the petitioners from service has since been regularised by the respondents by treating the same as earned leave/half pay leave as is available and due to each of the petitioners and for such periods which were available the petitioners have been paid their dues. The balance of the period has been regularised as extraordinary leave, but all the petitioners have been given continuity of service. In the facts and circumstances of the cases I cannot hold that the actions of the respondents are in any manner illegal or erroneous.
9. In view of the above, I find no merit in all the writ petitions and the same are dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.