THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE AND ORS.versusDEENAMMA SANDEL

              THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE                            A
      ~
                               AND ORS.
                                   v.
                           DEENAMMA SANDEL

                                  DECEMBER 12, 2007                                  B

                [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDP.SATHASIVAM,JJ.]


               Border Security Force Rules, 1969:
                                                                                     c
               r.19-Employee permitted to resign in terms ofr.19-Claim for
          pension-High Court directing the authorities to decide the
          representation within the stipulated time-HELD: It is for the
          authorities to consider the question ofeligibility-Ifemployee has any
          grievance against their decision, she can take appropriate remedy as D
  -1      available in law.

               The instant appeal was filed by the Department challenging the
          judgment ofthe High Court whereby it directed the authorities to dispose
          of the representation of the respondent-employee claiming that she E
          having been permitted to resign in terms of Rule 19 of the Border
          Security Force Rules, 1969, was entitled to pension.

               It was contended for the appellants that the respondent was not
. I       eligible for pension as she completed only 18 years and three months
          of service.                                                          F

               Disposing of the appeal, the Court

               HELD: It is for the appellants to consider the question ofeligibility.
          Neither the Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court
                                                                                      G
          decided about the eligibility. The only direction given was to consider
          the representation. It was open to the appellants to reject the
          representation by deciding the issue ofeligibility. Ifthe respondent has
          any grievance to such rejection, she can take appropriate remedy as
                                            465                                     H
    466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.


A available in law. [Para 6 and 7] [467-D, E, F]

         Union ofIndiav. Rakesh Kumar etc., [2001] 2 SCR 927, relied on.
         Jos. v. Border Security Force, (1999) 3 KLT 904, cited.

B       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 928 of
    2002.
        From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.8.2000 of the High
    Court ofKerala at Emakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1588 of2000.
c        Sunita Sharma and Sushma Suri for the Appellants.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the
    appellants.
D       2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of
  the Kt:rala 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 of2000. The High Court relied on some earlier
  decisions to hold that a person resigning under Rule 19 of the Border
E 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. v. Border Security Force, (1999) 3
  KL T 904. Relying upon this judgment, the learned Single Judge had
F directed the respondents in the writ petition to consider the representation
  of the appellant within a stipulated time.
       3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent
  was not eligible for pension as she had completed only 18 years and three
G 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.
         4. This Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:-
H             "In the result, there is no substance in the contention of the
          THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY                             467
           FORCE v. DEENAMMA SANDEL [PASAYAT, J.]
           learned counsel for the respondents that on the basis of Rule 49 A
           of the CCS (Pension) Rules or on the basis of G.O., the
           respondents who have retired after completing qualifying service
           of I 0 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 B
           Rule 19 of the BSF Rules before the attainment of the age of
           retirement or before putting such number ofyears 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 C
           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."

                                                          (Italics for emphasis) D
j
          5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent inspite of
    service of notice.
          6. 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 E
    Judge nor the Division Bench decided about the eligibility. The only
    direction given was to consider the representation.
           7. 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, F
    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 ifthe respondent has any grievance, she can agitate it
    before an appropriate forum.
                                                                                  G
          8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
    RP.                                                  Appeal disposed of.