Rule 235 relaxation grants proportionate and family pension despite resignation after qualifying PIF service.

The petitioner’s deceased husband, Late Hari Narayan Rajbongshi, was appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Border) under the Additional Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners (P.I.F.) Scheme in 1991 and served in the Assam Police Border Organization until his resignation on 28.07.2009.

He died on 31.01.2019 after rendering more than 10 but less than 20 years of service.

The Supreme Court, in Md. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, Assam , Civil Appeal No. 7922/2002, held that appointments under the P.I.F. and Additional P.I.F. Schemes could not be subjected to annual termination and reappointment.

Pursuant thereto, the Government of Assam issued an order dated 23.09.2011 recognizing entitlement to pension for qualifying civil service.

Subsequently, an Office Memorandum dated 21.01.2019 provided proportionate pensionary benefits to eligible ex-servicemen who had rendered more than 10 but less than 20 years of service by relaxing Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 under Rule 235.

The petitioner sought proportionate pension, arrears payable to her husband up to his death, and family pension thereafter.

The authorities contended that the matter was under consideration, while the Accountant General objected that the deceased had been engaged contractually and had resigned, attracting Rules 31 and 62(a).

Whether the petitioner’s deceased husband was entitled to proportionate pension under the Government of Assam’s order dated 23.09.2011 and Office Memorandum dated 21.01.2019, despite having rendered more than 10 but less than 20 years of service.

Whether the deceased’s alleged contractual status and resignation disentitled the petitioner to pensionary benefits under Rules 31 and 62(a) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears of pension up to the deceased’s death and family pension thereafter.

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Md. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, Assam , which held that the P.I.F. and Additional P.I.F. Schemes did not authorize periodic termination and fresh appointment and that artificial breaks in service were impermissible.

It relied on the Government of Assam’s order dated 23.09.2011, which recognized pensionary entitlement for ex-servicemen appointed under the Additional P.I.F. Scheme subject to qualifying service under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.

Although Rule 31 ordinarily requires Government service to be substantive, permanent, and Government-paid, the Rules permit specified non-gazetted service to be declared qualifying and allow relaxation.

Rule 235 empowered the Government to relax Rule 31, and the Office Memorandum dated 21.01.2019 accordingly granted proportionate pension and other admissible benefits to eligible ex-servicemen with more than 10 but less than 20 years of service.

The Court further held that the general forfeiture rule under Rule 62(a), concerning resignation, could not defeat the specific pensionary benefit created through the Government’s policy decision and relaxation under Rule 235.

The Court found it undisputed that the deceased had served under the Additional P.I.F. Scheme from 1991 until 28.07.2009 and had completed more than 10 years of service.

His service could not be disregarded as merely contractual because the Supreme Court had invalidated the annual termination arrangement, and the State Government had subsequently recognized pensionary rights for such service.

Since the deceased had been appointed before 01.02.2005 and fell within the category covered by the 21.01.2019 Office Memorandum, the Court held that the relaxed pension regime applied to him.

The objections based on Rule 31 and Rule 62(a) were rejected because the petitioner’s claim arose not solely under the ordinary pension rules, but under the specific Government order and relaxation issued pursuant to Rule 235.

The Court also noted that similarly situated ex-servicemen had received pensionary benefits and that the authorities themselves had acknowledged the deceased’s eligibility with effect from 01.09.2015.

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to proportionate pension for her deceased husband’s service under the Additional P.I.F. Scheme, arrears from the date permissible under the Office Memorandum dated 21.01.2019, and family pension thereafter in accordance with law.

The respondent authorities were directed to finalize the pension papers, release the admissible pension and arrears, and take necessary steps for sanction and release of family pension within three months from the date of judgment.