Dismissal From Service Bars Pensionary Benefits Under Punjab Civil Services Rules: Punjab & Haryana HC
Punjab & Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal dismissed a petition that sought pensionary benefits for a dismissed Punjab Police officer. The court affirmed that dismissal from service revokes pension rights under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. It held that pension is only available to those permitted to retire, and granting pension...
Punjab & Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal dismissed a petition that sought pensionary benefits for a dismissed Punjab Police officer. The court affirmed that dismissal from service revokes pension rights under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. It held that pension is only available to those permitted to retire, and granting pension despite dismissal would make the disciplinary proceedings meaningless. The court clarified that while a dismissed employee may seek a compassionate allowance under exceptional circumstances, pension can only be sought on retirement and not dismissal.
Background
Malook Singh joined the Punjab Police in October 1975 after serving in the Army. Following some disciplinary proceedings, he was dismissed from service on 29 May 1999. His appeals and revision petitions were not successful, and his mercy petition was rejected too. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court and challenged his dismissal. However, the court, in an order dated 16 May 2003, refused to interfere. Nevertheless, considering his 21 years of long service, the court granted him the liberty to approach the authorities for pensionary benefits.
Thus, Singh filed a representation, arguing that he had completed 21 years of service and was entitled to the pension. However, his claim was rejected. Aggrieved, he then filed another writ petition before the High Court, asking for the grant of pensionary benefits. However, Malook Singh passed away during the pendency of this petition, and his legal representatives pursued the case.
Arguments
Malook Singh argued that the High Court's earlier order acknowledged his entitlement to pensionary benefits. Further, citing Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab (2008 SCC OnLine P&H 1863) he argued that a employee with over 21 years of service should not be denied pension only because of his dismissal.
On the other hand, the Advocate General for Punjab argued that the earlier court order only directed the authorities to consider Malook Singh's claim; it did not anywhere mandate the grant of pension. Further, he explained that Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules clearly states that an employee dismissed for misconduct, insolvency, or inefficiency is ineligible for pension. He argued that allowing such claims would render the very concept of dismissal meaningless.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court observed that Malook Singh's dismissal had attained finality, as the Division Bench in the previous litigation did not interfere with it. Consequently, the only issue before the court was whether a dismissed employee could claim pensionary benefits.
Secondly, the court examined Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which unequivocally bars pension for dismissed employees. It noted that while a dismissed employee may seek a compassionate allowance under this rule, it can only be granted under exceptional circumstances. The court ruled that pensionary benefits are contingent on an employee retiring from service under normal circumstances or being compulsorily retired. It clarified that an employee dismissed from service is not entitled to such benefits.
Thirdly, the court distinguished the case of Manohar Lal cited by Malook Singh. It held that the case involved different rules and did not consider Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The court further examined Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, which also limits pensionary benefits to employees who retired under normal circumstances or are compulsorily retired.
Lastly, the court took note of the unexplained delay of seven years in filing the petition. The authorities rejected Malook Singh's pension claim in 2004, yet he approached the High Court only in 2011. The court ruled that the inordinate delay further weakens Singh's case. Thus, the court dismissed the petition.
Decided on: 21-02-2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:025452 | Malook Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ish Puneet Singh
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab
