Chaman Lal vs Union of India and others

Instant writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to fix and release service pension in addition to invalid pension and also

to release the arrears thereof on the grounds taken in it.

Petitioner was appointed as Constable on 25.02.1980 in Border Security Force (BSF) and allotted No.80577004. At the time of joining

service, it is contended, he was medically fit. During the year 1985, he developed some medical problems and was referred for medical treatment.

He was diagnosed as a case of Acute Psychotic Episode. The Board of Medical Officers considered him unfit for further service in BSF.

Therefore, he has been retired from service and invalid pension sanctioned in his favour. Petitioner has, it is averred, served for more than ten years

but the respondents have not sanctioned service pension in his favour. In this regard he approached respondents but all in vain.

It is claimed by petitioner that though respondents have granted invalid pension, yet he is also entitled for service pension as required under the

provisions of Rule 49 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as it is provided in Rule (2) Clause (b) in case of a Government servant

retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty three years but after completing qualifying

service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under Clause (a). It is, thus, contended that

petitioner is entitled to service pension in addition to invalid pension.

Respondents have filed objections insisting therein that petitioner joined 49 Bn. BSF on 24.08.1985 on his permanent posting from 57 Bn BSF.

As per medical history sheet available in his service book prepared by a Board of Medical Officers, he was alright before February, 1985. During

the year 1985, while deployed at Faridkot while suffering from Insomnia he was seen loitering here and there and at that time he was irritable and

crying and screaming in a high tone. He could not sleep for four to five nights consecutively. He consulted at Civil Hospital, Faridkot and was given

medical treatment and got relief. It is stated that there was relapse of the same ailment when Unit was deployed at Samba. He was medically

examined by the Unit Medical Officer. He was referred to Mental Hospital, Jammu, and admitted in Psychiatric Ward for about 15 days. After

getting discharged, he was on medication as advised by Psychiatrist. It is maintained that as a matter of policy, 49 Bn BSF moved from Samba to

Bareilly, where as well he had undergone treatment. On 06.05.1991, Psychiatric Specialist, Mental Hospital, Bareilly, diagnosed him as a case of

Acute Psychotic Episode. As a consequence of which, Board of Medical Officers considered him unfit for further service in BSF. On the basis of

Medical Board report, he was retired from service and invalid pension sanctioned as admissible under rules with effect from 03.11.1991 and

struck off strength from 02.11.1991 vide 49 Battalion BSF order dated 23.08.1991 and case for grant of pensionary benefits was forwarded. The

Pay and Accounts Division, BSF, New Delhi, released his invalid pension vide PPO No. 240559124286 dated 27.11.1991. Respondents state

that petitioner retired from service after completion of only 11 years 08 months and 07 days qualifying service.

It is further insisted by respondents that instant petition is barred by delay and laches. Petitioner was invalidated out in November, 1991 and

invalid pension was granted to him w.e.f. 03.11.1991. The petitioner maintained continued silence from 1991 to 2008 and approached this Court

after a gap of 17 years. More so, petitioner had not completed 20 years of qualifying service as envisaged under Rules and instead had only

rendered 11 years 08 months and 07 days qualifying service, therefore, he is not entitled to service pension. Thus, it is contended that since

petitioner was retired on medical grounds and for that invalid pension stands already granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Petitioner has laid claim for service pension and for this purpose he has referred to Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rule (2) Clause (b). It is pertinent

to mention here that Rule 49 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, does not create any new kind of pension but merely lays guidelines for calculating

amount of pension. Classes of pension and conditions governing their grant have been dealt with from Rules 35 to 41 of CCS Pension Rules.

Petitioner retired on grounds of mental infirmity, permanently incapacitating him for the service and consequently as per Rule 38 of CCS Pension

Rules, 1972, he was granted invalid pension. He completed more than 10 years of qualification service i.e. 11 years 08 months and 07 days and

the same was taken into consideration in the PPO referred to by petitioner while calculating the quantum of pension to be given to petitioner. Rule

49(2)(b) deals with proportionate pension for qualifying service, less than 33 years, but after completing 10 years of qualifying service. Further, for

all classes of pension, the method of determination of pension is same. So, the petitioner?s claim for service pension besides invalid pension on the

basis of Rule 49(2) (b) amounts to misinterpretation of Rules and does not have the sanction of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, on which he relies for

claim. In fact, petitioner has coined a new class of pension out of Rule 49(2)(b), i.e. service pension, whereas Rule 49(2)(b) deals only with

quantum of pension and describes the method for calculation of pension an individual is entitled to. This method of calculation ensures

proportionate pension based on qualifying service put in by the retiree.

Respondents have placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment rendered in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar reported in (2001) 4 SCC

309, wherein law relating to service pension has been settled. The Supreme Court has laid down that on the basis of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension)

Rules, any member of the Force who has retired after completing qualifying service of 10 years but before completing qualifying service of 20

years, is not entitled to get pensionary benefit. It has been further held that Rule-49 of CCS (Pension) Rules is only for calculating and quantifying

the amount of pension. In the instant case petitioner?s qualifying service has been taken into consideration while calculating invalid pension.

Therefore, there is neither any violation of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 nor any violation of principles of natural justice.

In view of rule position, more particularly Rule 31 to 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 as also Rule 49 of the said Rule, it is clear that

petitioner was entitled to invalid pension for completing more than ten- year service. Once the invalid pension has been released, he is not entitled

to any other pension. The claim of petitioner, as such, for grant of normal pension, in addition to invalid pension, is not supported by any rule

position. Otherwise also this aspect of Rule position has been discussed in detail by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.64/2008 titled

Union of India and others v. Abdul Majid Shah.

Viewed thus, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed along with connected MP(s).