Pension entitlement for BSF personnel remained statutory, while limited equitable relief barred recovery for long-paid pensioners.

Pension for BSF personnel could not be claimed merely on the basis of the 27.12.1995 circular, because the circular created no independent right and entitlement remained governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Resignation under the BSF Rules did not confer pension where statutory conditions were not otherwise satisfied, and no estoppel operated against the statute. The Court distinguished limited factual categories: personnel capable of re-induction had to satisfy re-induction conditions and refund amounts drawn where applicable, while those unable to be re-inducted due to age or incapacity were not allowed to continue receiving pension but were protected against recovery of pension already paid. For long-paid pensioners, Article 142 relief preserved pension and barred recovery to avoid hardship.

---

---

Issues: Whether BSF personnel who resigned on the basis of the 27.12.1995 circular could claim pension despite not being otherwise eligible under the pension rules, and whether limited equitable relief could be granted to certain classes of personnel in exercise of constitutional powers.

Analysis: The circular issued in 1995 did not create any independent right to pension. Pensionary entitlement for BSF personnel depended on eligibility under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and resignation under Rule 19(1) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 did not by itself confer pension where the statutory pension conditions were not met. The earlier decision had already settled that no person can claim a pensionary right dehors the statutory rules and that there is no estoppel against the statute. At the same time, the Court identified distinct factual categories: persons who had already rejoined service or could still be re-inducted were required to comply with the re-induction conditions and refund the amounts drawn where applicable, while persons who could not be re-inducted because of age or incapacity were not entitled to continue receiving pension but were protected from recovery of pension already paid. For those who had long drawn pension before the circular and subsequent stoppage, the Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to prevent hardship and refused recovery of pension already received, restoring their pension.

Conclusion: The general claim to pension failed, but limited equitable relief was granted only to the specified categories; all other petitions were dismissed.

---