JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) SHRI H. N. Upadhyaya, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N. P. Mittal, counsel for the respondents. Heard counsel. The facts which are not disputed are few but crucial. The right which is claimed to be enforced in this matter is also crucial to petitioners life and livelihood who is now out of employment, after having rendered services for 17 years, 4 months and 10 days in the Border Secutiry Force. ( 2. ) THE admitted position on facts is also that w. e. f. 19-11-1983, his resignation was accepted as per Annexure R-3. What is projected in annexure P/1, is that his date of enrolment in the Force is on 27-6-1967 and the date of "discharge" 19-11-1983, is also shown with his enrolment number and the fact that he was employed as Cook during the course of service is also manifested on the face of Annexure P/1. It is also shown therein that he was about 38 years old when he was "discharged". The grievance in this petition is that the petitioner has not been granted any pension while on the face of Annexure P/1 it appears the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 were made applicable to him. ( 3. ) SHRI Mittal, who appears for the respondents, has argued vehemently against any relief to be granted to the petitioner in this case. The first contention which learned counsel has urged is that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter as this matter lies squarely within the jurisidcition of Administrative tribunal to decide any question pertaining to the service condition of the petitioner. However, Shri Mittal concedes that that contention is rested on article 309 of the Constitution and he has made the contention on the footing that the petitioner has to be regarded as a person holding a "civil post". What counsel has, on the other hand candidly conceded, however, is that there is special law, namely. Border Security Force Act, 1968 and the rules framed thereunder, which is applicable to the petitioners case. In that view of the matter we do not think if we can accept Shri Mittals preliminary objection to this matter being heard by us and that objection is rejected. ( 4. ) NOW on merits. Border Security Force Act, 1968 and the rules framed thereunder, which is applicable to the petitioners case. In that view of the matter we do not think if we can accept Shri Mittals preliminary objection to this matter being heard by us and that objection is rejected. ( 4. ) NOW on merits. As we have already held that the petitioner has not to be regarded as holding "civil post" and his service conditions are governed by special law we therefore, propose to look at the relevant provision applicable to the petitioners case. That has to be read in Rule 19 of Border Security Force rules, 1969, for short the Rules. That is quoted herein in revelant parts : - "19. Resignation :- (1) The Central Government may having regard to the special circumstances of any case, permit any officer of the Force to resign from the Force before the attainment of the age of retirement or before putting in such number of years of service as may be necessary under the rules to be eligible for retirement: provided that while granting such permission the Central government may : (i) require the officer to refund to the Government such amount as would constitute the cost of training given to that officer; or (ii) make such reduction in the pension or other retirement benefits of the officer if so eligible as that Government may consider to be just and proper in the circumstances. (2) The Central Government may accept the resignation under sub-rule (1) with effect from such date as it may consider expedient : provided that it shall not be later than three months from the date of receipt of such resignation. (4) The provisions of this rule shall apply to and in relation to subordinate Officers and, Enrolled Persons as they apply to and in relation to any officer of the Force and the powers vested in the Central government under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be exercised in the case of a Subordinate Officer by a Deputy Inspector General and in the case of an Enrolled Person by a Commandant. " (Emphasis added) ( 5. " (Emphasis added) ( 5. ) ON the facts alleged, admitted and found in this case, which we have discussed above, we have no doubt that the petitioner would be entitled to pension though it would still be necessary for the Commandant, Respondent No. 4 in this case, to make an order in that regard as contemplated under the proviso (ii) to Rule 19 read with sub-rule (4) thereof as the petitioner is admittedly an "enrolled person" as per clause (14), sub-clause (d) of Rule 14a of the Rules. That we say because in annexure R-3 that deficiency is noted. It was incumbent on the said respondent to render a decision in terms of sub-rule (1) while accepting the resignation as per Annexure R-3 under sub-rule (2) of Rule 19. In this case there is nothing to be read in the said order in that regard. ( 6. ) ALTHOUGH Shri Mittal has laboured hard to convince us that the petitioner was a non-combatant personnel and his case would not be covered by rule 19, we see no merit in the contention raised even after reading Section 14a cited by him. As per clause (14), sub-clause (d) of Rule 14a an "enrolled person" is a class of "rank" while under rule 14 itself it is contemplated that "enrolled persons" along with "officers" and "subordinate officers" constitute the Force. Our attention is drawn by Shri Upadhyaya to section 6 of the Parent Act of which sub-section (2) supports our view. It is the clear legislative mandate of sub-section (2) that "notwithstanding" anything contained in the Act and the rules made thereunder "every person who has, for a continuous period of three months, been in receipt of pay as a person enrolled" and "borne on the rolls of the force" shall be deemed to have been duly enrolled. ( 7. ) THAT the petitioner has rendered hundred times more than three months service is not denied and, as we have already noted, an "enrolment number" was also allotted to him. He cannot, therefore, according to us, be denied the benefit of Rule 19 of the Rules framed under the Act which makes no distinction between a "combatant" and "non-combatant". Shri Mittal has drawn our attention to rules 17, 18 and 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, but for obvious reasons reliance thereon must be deemed to be misconceived. Shri Mittal has drawn our attention to rules 17, 18 and 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, but for obvious reasons reliance thereon must be deemed to be misconceived. The case of the petitioner is squarely Covered by Rule 19 which is special law and is in derogation of the general law in that regard embodied in CCS. (Pension)Rules. ( 8. ) FOR all the foregoing reasons we have no hesitation at all to hold that the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus for a direction to be made to the respondents to ensure that his case is considered under Rule 19 and that pension due payable to him is made available to him accordingly, within a period of four months. ( 9. ) IN the result, the petition succeeds to the extent hereinabove stated. No costs. C. C. today on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed.