Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 86 (GAU)

Union of India v. Mohit Ch. Phangcho Dekaraja

2009-02-09

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA, J.CHELAMESWAR

body2009
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The Border Security Force (BSF), represented by the Appellants has filed this appeal against the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 780/2001. The writ petition was filed by the Respondent herein making a grievance against the condition imposed for acceptance of resignation tendered by him, which is, deposit of three months salary stated to be mandatory under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969. The Respondent/writ Petitioner had joined the services of the BSF as a Medical Officer in the year 1997. On 14.7.1998 he submitted a letter to the authority tendering resignation from service. When the resignation was not accepted, he approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 4688/2000. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 30.8.2000 directing the Respondents to pass appropriate order on the basis of the request made by the writ petitioner. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the authority of the BSF directed the Petitioner to deposit three months salary so as to process his request for acceptance of resignation. Aggrieved by such condition imposed, the Petitioner filed the writ petition in question, in which the impugned order dated 14.11.2006 has been passed interfering with the condition so imposed. 3. We have heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. Referring to the provision of Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969, Mr. Chakraborty submits that deposit of three months pay and allowances being condition precedent towards consideration and acceptance of resignation tendered by the writ Petitioner, the case of the Petitioner could not be processed in absence of such deposit. He submits that the learned Single Judge committed manifest error of law in interpreting the said provision otherwise. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made by Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Appellants and the materials on record. The only question, which falls for our consideration is, as to whether the proviso of Rule 19(1) mandates deposit of three months pay and allowances as has been contended by the Appellants. There is no dispute that the Petitioner did not undergo any training a fact which has been duly taken note by the learned single Judge. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Appellants has also fairly submitted that the Petitioner did not undergo any training. 5. There is no dispute that the Petitioner did not undergo any training a fact which has been duly taken note by the learned single Judge. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Appellants has also fairly submitted that the Petitioner did not undergo any training. 5. The condition imposed by proviso to Rule 19(1) relates to return to the Government such amount as would constitute the cost of training given to the particular officer. The resignation tendered by an officer may be accepted before attaining the age of retirement, subject, however, to the condition that the officer is to refund to the Government the cost of training, which could be either actual cost of training or three months pay and allowances, whichever is higher. 6. The Appellants have insisted on payment of three months pay and allowances by the Petitioner towards processing his case for acceptance of resignation. According to the Appellants, it is either the actual cost of training or three months pay and allowances, which the authority is entitled to demand from an officer seeking resignation from the services of the BSE 7. The learned Single Judge on an interpretation of Rule 19 and having found that the Petitioner did not undergo any training has held that the Petitioner is not liable to pay three months pay and allowances as has been demanded by the Appellants. The expression "such amount as would constitute the cost of training given to that officer or three months pay and allowances, whichever is higher", makes the position clear. The amount to be paid is only in respect of training and not otherwise. Since the Petitioner did not undergo any training, there is no question of refund of any amount by him as the cost of the training or three months pay and allowances in lieu thereof. 8. The view taken by the learned Single Judge being in inconformity with Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.