J.P. Singh, J.— 1. The facts giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal, directed against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 of a Learned Single Judge of this Court, on respondent's Writ Petition SWP No. 1976/2001, holding him entitled to Pension and arrears thereof and issuing directions to the Union of India and its functionaries in the Border Security Force, not to seek refund of the Pension already drawn by him, besides order dated 27.10.2011 of the learned Single Judge refusing Union of India's Motion for review thereof, may, in brief, be stated thus:- 2. The respondent-Madan Lal filed Writ Petition SWP No. 1976/2001 seeking, inter alia, quashing of Commandant 15th Bn Border Security Force's order dated 06.09.1986 whereby the respondent was discharged from service, besides a Command to the appellants to reinstate him in service, in this court. He alternatively sought directions against the Union of India and its functionaries for sanctioning his Pension and payment of arrears thereof. To claim the above relief, it was, inter alia, pleaded thathe joined the Border Security Force on 19.06.1971 and had served for more than 15 years when because of serious illness, he overstayed his sanctioned leave. He was not permitted thereafter to join and was rather pressurized and coerced by the Border Security Force functionaries to sign papers for his discharge-on Resignation. Although he was later informed that Pension of Rs. 375/- had been sanctioned; yet nothing was paid to him. 3. The respondent's claim in the Writ Petition, in a nut shell, was based on the plea that the Border Security Force functionaries, exercising coercion and pressure, had forced him to resign, and the order issued by them in this behalf was void ab initio and he was, therefore, entitled to reinstatement, or in the alternative, to Pension. 4. Responding to the Writ Petition, the Union of India and its functionaries in the Border Security Force contested the case set up by the respondent in the Writ Petition pleading that he tendered resignation from the Border Security Force initially after five months of his joining which was accepted by the Competent Authority with effect from November 30, 1971. But, on his request, he was later re-appointed w.e.f. May 09, 1972. But, on his request, he was later re-appointed w.e.f. May 09, 1972. Fie was allowed Seven days' Casual Leave w.e.f. 08.02.1986 to 17.02.1986 on his request; but he did not report back despite issuance of several reminders requiring him to join duty. He instead applied for extension of leave on the ground of illness. He was directed to report to the Sector Headquarters Border Security Force Hospital, Jammu for treatment. He, however, declined so to do. After overstaying for 197 days, he voluntarily resigned on September 02, 1986. His resignation was accepted by the Commandant 15th Bn, BSF w.e.f. 10.09.1986 without any pensionary/financial benefits vide order No. 6461-66 dated 06.09.1986. According to the appellants, the respondent had completed fourteen years, four months and one day's service (14 years, 4 months and 1 day) at the time of his resignation from service. After his resignation, he applied for grant of service pension. His Pension case was processed; but was declined on the ground of his having not completed requisite 20 years' of qualifying service that would entitle him to Pension under rules governing the service. 5. The allegation of the respondent reflected as such in the Writ Petition that the functionaries of the Border Security Force had forced him to resign under coercion and threat of Jail Sentence was denied by the appellants in their response to the writ petition. It was additionally pleaded by them that the respondent's Claim in the Writ Petition was not covered by the Rules in force and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 6. A learned Single Judge of the Court found the respondent's case covered by the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar and ors. v. Union of India and another reported as (2006) 1 SCC 737 and accordingly issued directions to the Union of India and its functionaries not to seek refund of Pension paid to the respondent nor stop its payment to him. He was held.entitled tp the arrears of pension with effect from the date it was stopped. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment delivered in the respondent's Writ Petition, the Union of India sought review thereof from the learned Single Judge. He was held.entitled tp the arrears of pension with effect from the date it was stopped. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment delivered in the respondent's Writ Petition, the Union of India sought review thereof from the learned Single Judge. This was, however, declined on the ground that limited jurisdiction of Review may not permit examination of the factual and legal pleas projected by the Union against the judgment sought to be reviewed. This is how the Union of India and its functionaries in the Border Security Force are before us in Appeal against the Writ Court Judgment and order dated 17-11 -2006 and order passed on appellants' review petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. Perusal of the judgment and order on respondent's Writ Petition reveals that the Learned Single judge had applied the observations of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's Case (supra) to the respondent's case, proceeding on the premise that the appellants had sanctioned Pension in favour of the respondent and he had been receiving it before it came to be stopped. 9. The records of the case, And the respondent-writ petitioner's own admission, however, does not wholly support the premise on which the learned Single Judge had proceeded, for, there is explicit admission of the respondent in the Writ Petition that though the Pension was sanctioned in his favour; but he was not paid any amount of Pension despite requests. 10. It is, therefore, apparent that the learned Single Judge committed a factual error in treating the respondent, a pensioner, who had been receiving pension, that was later stopped by the Border Security Force functionaries as a result of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, reported as (2001) 4 SCC 309 . 11. The documents placed by the respondent on the records of the writ petition reveal that he was discharged pursuant to his resignation on 10.09.1986 and no Pension was sanctioned in his favour at that time. The Pension, that appears to have been later sanctioned in his favour by the Commandant 15 Bn Border Security Force Hissar (Haryana) on October 15,1996 i.e. after a period of about 10 years, too was not approved by the Competent Authority of the Border Security Force. The Pension, that appears to have been later sanctioned in his favour by the Commandant 15 Bn Border Security Force Hissar (Haryana) on October 15,1996 i.e. after a period of about 10 years, too was not approved by the Competent Authority of the Border Security Force. The respondent had all along been aware about this factual position that he was discharged from service without any Pension and this fact is writ large from his own Communication dated 12.07.1996 to the O.C., 15th Bn BSF, Sirsa Road, Hissar, Haryana, which is reproduced hereunder for reference:- "To The OC 15th BnBSF Sirsa Road, Hissar Haryana, PIN 123011 Sub: Request for grant of service pension. Sir, Most humbly and respectfully I beg to submit the following few lines for your kind consideration and an early sympathetic action: 1. I was enrolled in the BSF on 19.6.1971 and served with the unit at various places. I discharged my duties to the best of my ability, with dedication and integrity. 2.1 was discharge from service an 10-2-1886 at my own request. I put in a total service of more than 15 years in the unit. 3. My character was also assessed as good on the date of my discharge from the BSF with medical category AYE. 4. Unfortunately I have not been paid any service pension or gratuity till date for the services rendered in BSF. 5. I belong to a middle class family having no source of income for our livelihood during these hard times when the prices of all the essential commodities have gone very high. 6. I did not succeed to seek any job in the civil and are virtually at the stage of starvation. In view of the above mentioned facts it is humbly prayed that I may very kindly be sanctioned the Service pension and also the gratuity for the services rendered in the B.S.F. and oblige. I shall be highly thankful to your goodself for the act of this kindness on most humanitarian grounds. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Madan Lal) No. 725220068 Constable S/O Shri Shain Dass R/O Village Krishna Nagar Tehsil and Distt. Jammu(l&K State) Dated 22-7-3996 Copy to the DIG BSF, Saugar Road, Bikaner (Rajasthan) for information and necessary action please." 12. I shall be highly thankful to your goodself for the act of this kindness on most humanitarian grounds. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Madan Lal) No. 725220068 Constable S/O Shri Shain Dass R/O Village Krishna Nagar Tehsil and Distt. Jammu(l&K State) Dated 22-7-3996 Copy to the DIG BSF, Saugar Road, Bikaner (Rajasthan) for information and necessary action please." 12. At this stage, reference needs to be made to the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 142 of the Constitution of India while dealing with Raj Kumar's case (supra). These read thus:- .............."4. In cases which fall under category (A) i.e. personnel who had resigned prior to the circular dated 27.12.1995 and had been granted pension for special reasons and continued to draw it till the stoppage of pension as a result of the judgment in Rakesh Kumar we think that irrespective of the position in law, equity demands that, as they have drawn their pension for long periods, they shall not be asked to refund their drawn pension amounts, nor shall their pension be stopped now." 13. Although the respondent had resigned prior to the Circular dated 27.12.1995, yet neither was he granted Pension for any special reason(s) nor had he drawn it ever. In these circumstances, the equitable directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in Raj Kumar's case (supra), could not be applied to the respondent's case because such observations, regarding cases falling under category 'A', would apply only when the concerned BSF personnel had resigned pursuant to the Circular dated 27.12.1995 and had been granted pension for special reasons and continued to draw it till its stoppage as a result of the judgment in Rakesh Kumar's case, which was not the respondent's case in the writ petition, in that, according to his own admission, he had not drawn any pension pursuant to his discharge on resignation and nor was it his case that Pension allowed to him had been stopped. 14. 14. The respondent's Claim to pension under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules is even otherwise not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar reported as (2001) 4 SCC 309 , in that, he had not completed requisite service at the time of his discharge on resignation that would entitle him to Pension under rules. 15. The respondent's plea that the Border Security Force Authorities had coerced and pressurized him to submit his resignation stands specifically denied by the appellants. He has not placed any sustainable material on records on the basis whereof his plea of forced resignation may be considered. Even otherwise, the respondent's Communication dated 12.07.1996 does not indicate him to have resigned under any compulsion as it is specifically stated therein by him that he was discharged from service on 10.09.1986 on his own request. 16. Therefore, there does not appear any merit in the respondent's plea that he was forced and coerced to resign from service. This apart, such a plea raised after about 15 years of discharge could not even otherwise be examined at such a belated stage in exercise of the power of Judicial Review. 17. The respondent's learned counsel's reliance on, Lachmandas Kewalram and another v. State of Bombay reported as AIR 1952 Supreme Court 235 and Jai Shanker v. State of Rajasthan reported as AIR 1966 Supreme Court 492 may not be of any help to the respondent, for, the legal position settled in these cases does not deal, in any way, with the issue that arises for consideration in the Appeal. 18. For all what has been said above, the learned Single Judge is found to have proceeded on a wrong premise in applying Raj Kumar's judgment to the respondent's case, which had absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. There was, therefore, an error apparent on the face of records and the appellants' Motion for review was, therefore, warranted consideration by the I learned Single Judge on merits. The refusal of the Learned Single Judge to review the judgment cannot, I therefore, be sustained. 19. In any case, we have examined the case set up by the respondent for grant of Pension in the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The refusal of the Learned Single Judge to review the judgment cannot, I therefore, be sustained. 19. In any case, we have examined the case set up by the respondent for grant of Pension in the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. We, however, do not find merit therein in view of the legal position settled in Rakesh Kumar's case (supra) and reiterated in Raj Kumar's case (supra) thai a person j subject to the Border Security Force Act with less than 20 years of service is not entitled to Pension. We further find that there is no merit in the respondent's plea that he was forced to resign under pressure and coercion in the year 1986. We accordingly allow this Appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 as also order dated 27.10.2011 of the learned Single judge. 20. The respondent's Writ Petition, SWP No. 1976/2001 shall, accordingly stand dismissed; but without any order as to costs.