IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2001 of 2010 SANJAY KUMAR DAS (NO. IRLA NO. 1964029, EX-DY. COMMANDANT, BSF AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O SRI SHEO SHANKAR R/O GOLGHAR PARK ROAD, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA, BIHAR Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY OF POLICE-III, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE, NEW DELHI 4. THE DIG (PERS), O/O DG BSF, NEW DELHI 5. THE A.C. (ADM.), OFFICE OF I.G., BSF, BLA 6. THE DC ADM, O/O DIG BSF BDR 7. THE COMMANDANT (PERS), BSF FHQ 8. THE COMMANDANT (PERS), O/O DG BSF 9. THE ADMN OFFICER (PERS), O/O DG BSF, NEW DELHI 10. THE DIRECTOR (ACCOUNTS), PAD BSF, NEW DELHI 11. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (ACCOUNTS), O/O DG BSF, NEW DELHI 12. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PG-III, O/O DG BSF, NEW DELHI 13. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (FUND), BSF, NEW DELHI 14. THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, FUND SECTION, O/O DG BSF, NEW DELHI ----------- 03. 08.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India, who is praying for further time to file counter affidavit but considering the fact that he was allowed time under orders dated 22.2.2010 to seek instruction in the matter and file counter affidavit but in the light of the said order the counter affidavit has not been filed as the draft of the counter affidavit is to be forwarded to the Union, Ministry of Law and Justice for approval which is likely to take time, in the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant further time in view of the order which is proposed to be passed in the matter. 2. Petitioner who served the Border Security Force(hereinafter referred to as the Force) as Deputy Commandant has filed this writ application assailing the contents of the order bearing letter No.4194 dated 28.1.2009, Annexure-17, whereunder his request to rejoin the force has been rejected. He is further challenging the - 2 - order dated 3.3.2009, Annexure-21 and order dated 6.5.2009, Annexure-25, whereunder his similar request to rejoin the force has also been rejected. It appears resignation of the petitioner from the force was accepted by the President of India with effect from 31.10.2007 and acceptance was communicated to the petitioner under letter No.628 dated 31.10.2007, Annexure-13. Under application dated 13.10.2008, Annexure-16 he requested the authorities to permit him to rejoin the force in the light of the provisions contained in Rule- 26(4)(iii) of the CCS(Pension) Rule(hereinafter referred to as the Rules) but such request was rejected under the aforesaid impugned orders, which has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that similar request of Dr. Radhika Bahal, the Chief Medical Officer was allowed even after two years and four months of the acceptance of resignation submitted by Dr. Bahal. Such fact is being disputed by the counsel for the Union as according to him the resignation of Dr. Radhika Bahal was accepted with effect from 9.10.2003 and she applied for rejoining the force within 90 days of the acceptance of her resignation. It is further submitted by the counsel for the Union that none of the officers of the force has been permitted to join the force violating the contents of Rule-26(4)(iii) of the Rules. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted in rejoinder that period of 90 days has been provided in Rule-26(4)(iii) for joining the post after order to join the force is passed. 3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India, I direct the petitioner to represent before the competent - 3 - authority of the Union to consider his case for rejoining the force in accordance with law on the ground that Dr. Radhika Bahal another officer of the force was permitted to rejoin in terms of the provisions contained in Rule-26(4)(iii) of the Rules. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The representation of the petitioner for rejoining the force be considered on the ground that Dr. Radhika Bahal was allowed such liberty to join the force in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner along with a copy of this order before the competent authority. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)