border security force

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Section 47 of the BSF Act- the case squarely falls within 1st exception to the general provisions of Section 47 of the BSF Act, for which option is available to the applicant either to try them at BSF Court or let the Criminal Court of Ordinary jurisdiction to go ahead with their trial. In the instant case applicant has chosen to try them at BSF Court. Therefore, this court has no option but to hand-over the accused together with the charge-sheet and other material collected by Investigating agency to the applicant for trying them at the BSF Court, Application is therefore accepted and accused are ordered to be handed over under custody so the applicant together with charge-sheet and the supporting material as well as all the seized articles. The Officer concerned shall try the accused expeditiously and convey the final out-come of the case to this court as soon as it is completed” In the facts and circumstances of the case, we give liberty to the Director General of the Force, if so advised, to re-visit the entire issue within eight weeks bearing in mind the observation aforesaid in accordance with law and if he comes to the conclusion that the trial deserves to be conducted by the Security Force Court, nothing will prevent him to make an appropriate application afresh before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Needless to state that in case the Director General of the Force takes recourse to the aforesaid liberty and files application for the trial by the Security Force Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that observations made in these appeals are for the purpose of their disposal and shall have no bearing on trial. In the result, both the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment and order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 25th of November, 2010 and that of the High Court dated 21st October, 2011 are set aside. The Security Force Court shall forthwith transmit the record sent to it, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, who in turn shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law bearing in mind the observation aforesaid.


constables in the Border Security Force (BSF). On completion of 10 years service, they tendered resignation. Their resignation was accepted by the Commandant 48 BN BSF. The order accepting resignation provided that they would be entitled to pensionary benefits at their own request on extreme compassionate grounds. Later on, it was found that the pensionary benefits were not admissible to them and few others whose resignation was accepted under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (for short, ‘BSF Rules’). Accordingly, on October 20, 1998, a letter was sent intimating them that no pensionary benefits were admissible to those who have proceeded on resignation under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules. However, their case for reinstatement in BSF would be considered subject to refund of all payment made to them from the Government such as GPF, Gratuity, CGEGIS, etc. on their resignation. The respondents challenged the above communication by filing two separate Writ Petitions.In view of the decisions of this Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Rakesh Kumar (supra) and Raj Kumar & Others Vs. Union of India and Another (supra), the legal position that emerges is this : Rule 19 of the BSF Rules does not entitle any pensionary benefits on resignation of its personnel. The pensionary benefits are not ordinarily available on resignation under CCS (Pension) Rules since Rule 26 provides for forfeiture of service on resignation. However, by virtue of G.O. dated December 27, 1995 read with Rule 19 of BSF Rules, the member of BSF would be entitled to get pensionary benefits if he is otherwise eligible. Such personnel must, therefore, satisfy his eligibility under CCS (Pension) Rules. The CCS (Pension) Rules do not provide that a person who has resigned before completing 20 years of service is entitled to the pensionary benefits. Rule 49 only prescribes the procedure for calculation and quantification of pension amount and not the minimum qualifying service. 13. The view taken by the Single Judge and judgment of the Division Bench upholding the view taken by the Single Judge cannot be upheld and have to be set aside in light of the legal position noted above.In the present case, the respondents had resigned from BSF service immediately after completion of 10 years service and, therefore, they are not entitled to any pensionary benefits. 15. We, accordingly, allow these Appeals and set aside the orders dated August 25, 2000 passed by the Division Bench and dated September 29, 1999 passed by the Single Judge. We, however, observe that amount of pension paid to the respondents herein, if any, shall not be recovered. 16. No costs.

  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9647-9650 OF 2003   UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUS MADHU E.V. & ANR. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T R.M. LODHA, J.   Delay condoned. 2. We have heard Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, learned counsel … Continue reading

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s. 173 – Motor accident – Resulting in death – Claim for compensation – Award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Appeal by insurer contending that application for claim being u/s 173, not maintainable in view of s.53 of Employees States Insurance Act, 1948 – Appeal dismissed by High Court =On appeal, Held: Entitlement to the claim to be worked out by the Tribunal by taking note of s. 53 – Employees States Insurance Act, 1948 – s. 53. Regional Director, ESI Corporation and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr. 1993 Suppl.(4) SCC 100; A. Trehan v. Associated Electrical Agencies 1996(4) SCC 255 and Bharagath Engg. v. R. Rangamayaki 2003(2)SCC 138, relied on. Case Law Reference: 1993 Suppl.(4) SCC 100 Relied on Para 6 1996(4) SCC 255 Relied on Para 7 2003(2) SCC 138 Relied on Para 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3324 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 28.10.2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in FAFO No. 2019 of 2002. Atul Nanda, R. Hakeem, Sanjay Bhardwaj and P.N. Puri for the Appellants. K. Radhakrishnan, B. Sunita Rao, Sunita Sharma, S.N. Terdol and Sushma Suri for the Respondents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3324 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5989 of 2003) National Insurance Co. Ltd. ….Appellant Versus Hamida Khatoon and Ors. ….Respondents JUDGMENT Dr. ARIJTI PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,907,361 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,908 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com