AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite being entitled to family pension, the same has not been granted by the respondents. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of the written statement filed by them and prays that the present writ petition be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file with their able assistance.
It would be apposite to reproduced herein-below the relevant paragraphs of the written statement filed by the respondents, which reads as under:-
“Preliminary Objections
1.That petitioner has concealed the material fact and had tried to mislead this Hon'ble High Court by placing annexure P-2 on the record of the present writ petition. Petitioner placed on the record and attached a medical certificate dated 24 Jul 1997 as Annexure P-2 with Writ Petition which does not pertain to the sickness of her husband. Moreover, the husband of the petitioner had already allegedly expired on 21 Feb 1979 whereas the medical certificate (Annexure P-2) was issued on 24 Jul 1997. The petitioner is intentionally misleading this Hon'ble High Court by placing wrong facts. Since the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands on this account alone this writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
2.That the petitioner has filed present Writ Petition for grant of Extra Ordinary Family Pension after about 30 years of the resignation of her husband from the BSF without any justified reasons. Therefore, Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
3.That the husband of the petitioner had resigned from the service of BSF which was accepted by the competent authority with effect from 5th Jun 1973 after the husband of the petitioner rendered only about six years and eight months of service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled UOl versus Rakesh Kumar and Others (AIR 2001 SC 1877) has held that a BSF person on resignation from the service is not entitled for pensionary benefits before completing at least 20 years qualifying service. The husband of the petitioner was not eligible for grant of pension as per rules, as such the petitioner is also not eligible for the same. Therefore, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the above mentioned ground alone. Even in the cases where the benefit of pension was allowed and later on withdraw by the competent authority, aggrieved by the order petitioners challenged the action of Union of India by way of writ petition before this Hon'ble High Court. This Hon'ble High Court already dismissed two writ petitions. Copies of the judgement passed by this Hon'ble High Court are enclosed herewith for kind perusal of this Hon’ble High court as Annexure R-1 & R-2.
Parawise Reply.
1 to 6. XXX XXX XXX XXX
7.That Para No.7 of the Writ Petition is wrong hence denied. It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner had resigned from the service after rendering about 6 years and eight months of service and as such he was not entitled for any pension. Since the husband of the petitioner was not entitled for any pension hence the petitioner is also not entitled for any pension. The rules quoted by the petitioner are not at all applicable in the case of the petitioner, who allegedly died after more than 5 year of leaving the BSF service.”
A perusal of the above shows that husband of the petitioner resigned from service as per rules, he and was not eligible for grant of pension, since the husband of the petitioner was not eligible for grant of pension, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to any family pension.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Union of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar, 2001(2) S.C.T. 1085 has held that resignation before completion of qualifying pensionable service does not confer any additional right of pension on BSF employees.
In view of the written statement filed by the respondents and the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, as referred to above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.