JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - By way of present writ petition, the petitioner is claiming liberalized family pension from the date of death of her husband with interest @ 6% per annum and also seeking compassionate appointment of herself or her son. 2. The facts, which cull out from the case, are that the petitioner is widow of Head Constable Ramjilal bearing Belt No. 87644132. He was posted in 103 Battalion of Border Security Force and deployed at field Malika under ''D'' Coy. He died due to Hypothermia leading Pulmonary Odema with consequent Cardio Respiratory Arrest with Ischemia of vital organs on 26/03/2004. As the death was considered as battle casualty, the Director, Soldier Welfare Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur vide letter dated 03/06/2004 requested the Commanding Officer, 103 BN, BSF to send casualty report so that the facilities to which the petitioner would have been entitled may be released. 3. The petitioner was sanctioned family pension vide PPO dated 05/08/2004. It appears that there has been communication sent by the District Collector, Jhunjhunu forwarding application of the petitioner with regard to compassionate appointment as well as grant of liberalized family pensionary award. It is also noted that the petitioner had been granted financial assistance for education of her children vide letter dated 24/01/2008 but the liberalized pensionary award was not released. Hence, notices were issued in the present writ petition. 4. In reply, the respondents have stated that while the petitioner''s husband was deployed at Field Malika, at about 0825 hours, he complained of chest pain and became unconscious. He was evacuated to Army Hospital, 8 Garhwal Rifles located at FDL Balbir where he was declared dead. The cause of death was noted as above and it was attributed to Government Service. It is stated in the reply that the petitioner was awarded extra-ordinary pension along with following financial benefits:- (i) Family pension (EOP) Rs. 2,500/-PM. w.e.f. 27/03/2004 (ii) DCRG Rs. 74,964/- (iii) FA Rs. 27,500/- (iv) CGEIS Rs.40,573/- (v) Ex-Gratia (Central Govt.) Rs. 5,00,000/- (vi) GPF Rs. 1,51,108/- (vii) DLI Rs. 60,000/- (viii) Leave Encashment Rs. 1,041/- (ix) Insurance Rs. 7,00,000/- 5. It is also stated in the reply that an Amount of Rs. 7 lacs has been released on 08/01/2011 which was lying in the Unit since 06/01/2001. 74,964/- (iii) FA Rs. 27,500/- (iv) CGEIS Rs.40,573/- (v) Ex-Gratia (Central Govt.) Rs. 5,00,000/- (vi) GPF Rs. 1,51,108/- (vii) DLI Rs. 60,000/- (viii) Leave Encashment Rs. 1,041/- (ix) Insurance Rs. 7,00,000/- 5. It is also stated in the reply that an Amount of Rs. 7 lacs has been released on 08/01/2011 which was lying in the Unit since 06/01/2001. As regards contents of Appendix ''A'' relating to circumstances for classifying the casualties as battle or physical as enumerated in Para (g) of the said Appendix ''A'' which provides for the casualties occurring while operating on the International Border or Line of Control due to natural calamities and illness caused by climatic conditions, the respondents have submitted in the reply that such a document is not as to how is the originating authority of the said document and appears to be belonging to Defence Ministry of Army Headquarters and the respondents have stated that it would not apply to the Central Government employees including the BSF ans the BSF personnel are governed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and entitled to get the financial benefits under the CCS Rules only and thus, the petitioner''s husband casualty cannot be treated to be a battle casualty as there is no such provision in BSF. 6. With regard to the submission of the petitioner, the respondents have stated in their reply in terms that the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Pension & Pensioner''s Welfare) OM No. 45/22/97 & PW(c) dated 3.2.2000 stipulated criteria for determining compensation payable for death or disability in respect of Central Government Employees under different circumstances into following five distinct categories viz. Category-A, Category-B, Category-C, Category-D and Category-E, which provide as under :- Category-A : Death or disability due to natural causes not attributable to Govt. service. Examples would be chronic ailment like heart and renal diseases, prolonged illness, accidents while not on duty etc. Category-B: Death or disability due to natural causes are accepted as attributable to or aggravated by Govt. service. Diseases contracted because of continued exposure to a hostile work environment subjected to extreme weather conditions or occupational hazards resulting in death or disability would be examples. Category-C: Death or disability due to accidents in the performance of duties. Some examples are accidents while travelling on duty in Govt. service. Diseases contracted because of continued exposure to a hostile work environment subjected to extreme weather conditions or occupational hazards resulting in death or disability would be examples. Category-C: Death or disability due to accidents in the performance of duties. Some examples are accidents while travelling on duty in Govt. vehicles or public transport a journey on duty is performed by service aircraft, mishap at sea, electrocution while on duty etc. Category-D: Death or disability attributable to acts of violence by terrorists, antisocial elements etc., wherein their performance of duties or otherwise. Apart from cases of death of injury sustained by personnel of the Central Police Organizations while employed in aid of the civil administration in quelling agitation, riots or revolt by demonstrators, other public servants including police personnel etc. Bomb blasts in public places or transport, indiscriminate shooting incidents in public etc. would be covered under this category. Category-E: Death or disability arising as result of (a) attack by or during action against extremists, antisocial elements, and (b) enemy action in international war or border skirmishes and war like situations including cases which are attributable to (I) extremists acts exploding mines etc., while on way to an operational area, (ii) kidnapping by extremists, and (iii) battle inoculation as part of training exercises with live ammunition. 7. Accordingly, the contention of the respondents is that the case of husband of the petitioner falls in Category "B" and would be therefore, entitled to 60% of the basic pay as family pension subject to minimum of Rs. 2500/- (Pre-revised scale), now Rs. 7000/-. 8. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner does not fall under Category "D" or "E" and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to pension under Liberalized Pensionary Award Scheme. As regards compassionate appointment of her son, it is stated that there is no such provision for reserving right of appointment till his son becomes eligible and it would be purely subject to availability of vacancy and other norms at the time of submission of the application and thus, it has been submitted that the benefit of Liberalized Pension cannot be released in terms of Circular dated 03/02/2000. 9. The case was transferred to Armed Forces Tribunal by this Court who sent it back to this Court vide order dated 07/11/2014 stating that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. 10. 9. The case was transferred to Armed Forces Tribunal by this Court who sent it back to this Court vide order dated 07/11/2014 stating that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. 10. Although this Court has noted that the Tribunal does not have power to transfer matters to this Court under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act but considering that the matter has been pending since long, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the matter on merits. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards one order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur dated 20/05/2016 in the case of Smt. Tarawati vs. Union of India & Others (Original Application No. 107/2015) whereby the death caused to the husband of Smt. Tarawati in that case while posted at high altitude area on account of chest pain was treated to be a battle casualty and the said Smt. Tarawati was granted liberalized family pension. Learned counsel has also taken this Court to Appendix-4 for granting liberalized pensionary awards in special cases which takes into its notice Government of India, Department of Pension and Pensioners'' Affairs OM No. 33/5/89-P. & P.W. (K), dated 09/04/1990 and mentions that these orders would apply to Civilian Central Government Servants who are governed by the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules and these orders would apply to the Government servants killed or disabled as a result of international wars; as a result of fighting in war-like operations or border skirmishes with any country; while fighting against armed hostiles; during laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also mines sweeping operations between one month before the commencement and three months after the conclusion of the operations and as a result of attack by extremists, antisocial elements, etc., or during action against dacoits, smugglers, hostiles, etc. and is also extended to casualties suffered by the civilian Central Government employees assisting the IPKF in Sri Lanka and in these circumstances, the pension which the widow draws is equal to the pay lowest drawn by the deceased Government servant admissible to her for life or until her remarriage and after remarriage, at the rates of pension available to other in terms of Rule 4. 12. 12. The question which arises for adjudication before this Court firstly is whether the provisions of battle casualty as laid down in Annexure-6 would apply to the petitioner and secondly, if not, whether the petitioner would be entitled in terms of liberalized pensionary awards as laid down for civilian Central Government servants under Appendix-4 to the Pension Rules. 13. So far as the petitioner''s husband is concerned, he was admittedly not in the armed forces and was not governed by the Army Act and was governed by the Border Security Force Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as such, Annexure-6 would not ipsofacto apply. 14. As regards the liberalized pensionary award mentioned in the CCS (Pension) Rules is concerned, the same relates to civilian Central Government servants. Admittedly, the petitioner''s husband cannot be said to be a civilian as he was in the Border Security Force. The question is what is the status of an employee working with the BSF. The relevant provisions of the BSF Act, 1968 and the BSF Rules, 1969 framed thereunder provide as under:- "Section 2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) "active duty", in relation to a person subject to this Act, means any duty as a member of the Force during the period in which such person is attached to, or forms part of, a unit of the Force- (i) Which is engaged in operations against an enemy, or (ii) which is operating at a picket or engaged on patrol or other guard duty along the borders of India, and includes duty by such person during any period declared by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette as a period of active duty with reference to any area in which any person or class of persons subject to this Act may be serving; Section 4. Constitution of the Force. - (1) There shall be an armed force of the Union called the Border Security Force for ensuring the security of the borders of India. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Force shall be constituted in such manner as may be prescribed and the conditions of service of the members of the Force shall be such as may be prescribed Section 6: Enrolment. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Force shall be constituted in such manner as may be prescribed and the conditions of service of the members of the Force shall be such as may be prescribed Section 6: Enrolment. - (1) The persons to be enrolled to the Force, the mode of enrolment, and the procedure for enrolment shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and the rules, every person who has, for a continuous period of three months, been in receipt of pay as a person enrolled under this Act and borne on the rolls of the Force shall be deemed to have been duly enrolled. Section 14 Offences in relation to the enemy and punishable with death. Section 14 Offences in relation to the enemy and punishable with death. - Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say, (a) shamefully abandons or delivers up any post, place or guard, committed to his charge or which it is his duty to defend; or (b) intentionally uses any means to compel or induce any person subject to this Act or to military, naval or air force law to abstain from acting against the enemy or to discourage such person from acting against the enemy; or (c) in the presence of the enemy shamefully casts away his arms, ammunition, tools or equipment or misbehaves in such manner as to show cowardice; or (d) treacherously holds correspondence with, or communicates intelligence to, the enemy or any person in arms against the Union; or (e) directly or indirectly assists the enemy with money, arms, ammunition, stores or supplies or in any other manner whatsoever; or (f) in time of active operation against the enemy, intentionally occasions a false alarm in action, camp, quarters, or spreads or causes to be spread reports calculated to create alarm or despondency; or (g) in time of action leaves his Commandant or other superior officer or his post, guard, picket, patrol or party without being regularly relieved or without leave; or (h) having been captured by the enemy or made a prisoner of war, voluntarily serves with or aids the enemy; or (i) knowingly harbours or protects an enemy not being a prisoner; or (j) being a sentry in time of active operation against the enemy or alarm, sleeps upon his post or is intoxicated; or (k) knowingly does any act calculated to imperil the success of the Force or the military, naval or air forces of India or any forces co-operating therewith or any part of such forces, shall, on conviction by a Security Force Court, be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned. " 15. Thus, from above, it is apparent that a BSL Personnel cannot be equated to civil employee of Central Govt. 16. The Rules of 1969 which have been framed under the Act lay down conditions of service of the BSF personnel. For all intents and purposes, the BSF is a para-military force and their personnel cannot be said to be civilians. 17. 16. The Rules of 1969 which have been framed under the Act lay down conditions of service of the BSF personnel. For all intents and purposes, the BSF is a para-military force and their personnel cannot be said to be civilians. 17. The deployment of the BSF personnel is admittedly at the border areas along with headquarters which may also put in the peace situations. However, it cannot be denied that the field of duties of personnel of the BSF is same to that of armed force personnel and there is only a thin line of difference between the two with regard to the nature of deployment and the responsibilities of duties at the border. Apparently, at the stage of direct battle i.e. in a declared war, the BSF can only act in support of army and the first line of defence thereafter shifts to the armed forces. However, during other times, the BSF is deployed at the borders and the armed forces are not to be posted at all places of borders but at the places as per the requirement. In the circumstances, therefore, a personnel who may suffer casualty at the international border line whether he is from BSF or he is from armed forces, cannot be distinguished for the purpose of giving the benefit to the widows and such artificial distinction being drawn by the Central Government or their authorities sitting in the offices of the Government of India is highly deplorable and appears to be nothing but an act of distinguishing wrongfully and illegally the work being performed by the BSF personnel with the armed forces personnel. Their Units may be different but their zeal towards duty and to protect the border and die for the nation is same and one cannot distinguish their services only with a view to deny payment of benefits to their widows by putting artificial and technical reasons. 18. Their Units may be different but their zeal towards duty and to protect the border and die for the nation is same and one cannot distinguish their services only with a view to deny payment of benefits to their widows by putting artificial and technical reasons. 18. The Armed Forces Tribunal, while allowing original application of the widow of an armed force personnel, who died while on duty at the border, has released liberalized pensionary award treating him to be a battle casualty but the present petitioner whose case was also sent to the Armed Forces Tribunal, on the technical ground of the husband being not in Army but was serving in BSF, the Armed Forces Tribunal has returned the file to this Court and the petitioner has been waiting for his dues since long. Her husband also died in similar circumstances while doing service for the nation at the border where he suffered extreme medical ailment resulting causing his immediate death and while the petitioner''s husband was evacuated and sent to Army Hospital, the benefit has not been extended to his widow. The situation is pathetic and deserves to be corrected. 19. Apart from above, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of her son also needs to be examined taking into consideration that her husband''s death was caused while performing duties at the border area. A pragmatic approach ought to be adopted by the authorities specially towards citizens who are ready to give their life for protection of the nation. While the compassionate appointment policy is also in-vogue for civil staff in the Central Government as well as State Governments, the same should be extended to the BSF personnel too who lost their lives while on duty protecting borders of the nation. 20. Accordingly, it is held that all the BSF Personnel or any other para-military force personnel who suffer casualty while being posted at the border areas shall be treated similar for the purpose of grant of benefit to their widow and similar benefits will be payable to them as has been released for armed force personnel while suffering casualty on account of doing duties at the border area. Once the authorities reached to the conclusion that the death has been caused, the distinctions made by the Central Government relating to the different cases of death for the purpose of releasing benefit to the widow is wholly unjustified and unconstitutional and deserves to be held bad in law. 21. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall now release liberalized family pensionary award benefit to the petitioner and also consider case of her son for compassionate appointment for which she will submit application along with details of education of her son on having completed 18 years of age. The arrears of liberalized family pensionary award shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. Interest @ 6% per-annum shall also be paid. The interest on the delayed payment of the amount of Rs. 7 lac which was lying with the respondents from 2001 to 2011 shall also be paid with interest @6% per annum. The cost of the writ petition is assessed at Rs. 25000/- which shall also be released. The compliance of this order be made by the respondents within three months of the receipt of certified copy of this order in their office.