Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition filed by a former police officer seeking direction to the State to grant him pensionary benefits due to his qualifying service, a Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., dismissed the petition, holding that if pension or other pensionary benefits were granted despite dismissal from service, every police official would be entitled to pension based on his length of service. However, the Court allowed the petitioner to claim compassionate pension under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (‘the Rules’).
Background
The petitioner [since dead, represented by his legal representatives], joined Punjab Police in 1975. He was subsequently dismissed vide an order in 1999. Aggrieved, he preferred an appeal and a revision petition before the higher authorities but was unsuccessful.
He preferred a writ petition before the Court, which was disposed of with liberty to approach the State for pensionary benefits since he had rendered more than 21 years of service. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the authorities, but his claim was rejected vide the impugned order.
Analysis
Upon perusal of the record, the Court stated that it was evident that the petitioner’s order of dismissal from service stood upheld. A Division Bench of the Court had dismissed his petition against dismissal, though he was granted liberty to approach the State with the claim of pensionary benefits.
The Court noted that Rule 2.5 of the Rules provided that pension may not be granted to a government employee who was dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency, or inefficiency, however he may be granted compassionate allowance in special circumstances. Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that since the petitioner was dismissed from service and his dismissal was upheld, his qualifying service lost significance. If the pension was extended based on the length of service, the order of dismissal or removal from service would become meaningless.
Further, the Court noted that Rule 16.2 of the Rules provided that the disciplinary authority, while passing an order of dismissal from service, shall take care of the length of service and the claim of pension. However, in the present case, the order of dismissal had been upheld thus, the petitioner could not claim pension as a matter of right.
The Court perused Rule 9.18 of the Rules that categorically provided that a retiring pension was granted to an officer who was either permitted to retire or was compulsorily retired after completing qualifying service. Noting this, the Court remarked that the intent and purport of the aforesaid Rule was to deny pension to those persons who were dismissed from service. If the pension was granted irrespective of punishment, including dismissal from service, Rule 9.18 would lose its significance.
The Court opined that if pension or other pensionary benefits were granted despite dismissal from service, every police official would be entitled to pension on the basis of his length of service.
The Court also noted that there was no explanation for the inordinate delay of seven years in approaching the Court to challenge the impugned order which was passed in 2004.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to claim compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 2.5 of the Rules.
[Malook Singh (since deceased) through his LRs v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 3993 of 2011 (O&M), decided on 21-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Ish Puneet Singh
For the respondent: Aman Dhir, DAG