IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WA.No. 698 of 2005(E) --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.3.2004 IN O.P. 32760 OF 2000 ) APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECUTIRY FORCE PAY & ACCOUNTS DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PUSHPA BHAVAN, MADANGIR, NEW DELHI-110 062. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (MHA), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE (RAJ) MANDORE ROAD, JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN. BY ADV. MR. T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: -------------------------- P.C. PAUL, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. P. CHACKO, (EX-SUBEDAR MAJOR/PA/BSF), PARATHOLI HOUSE, EDANADU P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA. ADV. MS. AYSHA YOUSEFF THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W. A. No. 698 OF 2005 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 11th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon J. The issue involved in this case is, whether the respondent herein is entitled to get pension under the BSF Rules notwithstanding the fact that the respondent does not have the requisite qualifying service. 2. The Original Petition filed by the respondent, seeking for such benefit, was dismissed, stating that the petitioner (respondent herein) was not entitled to get the pension in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Surendran Nair (2001 (2) KLT 125). However, a further observation was made by the learned Single Judge that, the said verdict would not stand in the way of the Writ Petitioner to have the claim for 'gratuity' adjudicated, aggrieved of which, the respondents in the Writ Petition have preferred this Writ Appeal. 3. Sri. T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the appellants submits that, the issue has attained finality, by virtue of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar Vs. Union of India (AIR 2006 SC 938). The position in this regard is fairly W.A. No. 698 of 2005 2 conceded by the learned counsel Sri. N. Asok Kumar, appearing for the respondent as well 4. In the above circumstances, no further adjudication is necessary. The Writ Appeal is allowed and the Original Petition is dismissed. No cost. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd