Mritunjay Kumar (Ex-Deputy Commandant, B.S.F.) v. The Union of Inda

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate, Asstt. Solicitor General, Govt. of India. ====================================================== PRESENT: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN ORDER 3 19-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for directing the respondents to make payment of gratuity to 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.12291 of 2012 (3) dt.19-07-2012 the petitioners in the light of Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and allow all facilities after resignation to the petitioners i.e. pay protection in various promotions, canteen facilities and other benefits which are made available to the Armed Forces Ex-Servicemen.

Petitioners were appointed in Border Security Force as Assistant Commandant and resigned from their services respectively on 31.08.2007 and 31.01.2007 as Deputy Commandant BSF after completing more than seven years of service. The said resignation was accepted by the competent authority without pensionary benefits under Section 8 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 read with Section 3 of the said Act and Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969.

In the said circumstances, letter dated 12.10.2011 was issued stating that such resignations which were accepted under the said Rules have no link with pensionary benefits and as such petitioners are not entitled to gratuity and besides they are entitled to receive an amount in lieu of half of the earned leave due in their credits at the time of ceasing their service and amount to that effect had also been remitted to them.

In the said circumstances, the claim of the petitioners is directly contradictory to the said stand of the 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.12291 of 2012 (3) dt.19-07-2012 respondents, which is apparent from letter dated

18.10.2011 (Annexure-2), but such orders either written to petitioner no.1 or petitioner no.2 have not been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition although the view of the authorities stands directly contradictory against the claims of the petitioners.

In the said circumstances, this court has no option but to reject this petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sunil/- (S.N. Hussain, J)