Dismissed Police Officer Not Entitled To Pension Despite Long Service: P&H HC

Background

Malook Singh joined Punjab Police in 1975 after retiring from the Indian Army. However, he was dismissed from service on May 29, 1999. He appealed this dismissal before higher authorities and filed a mercy petition with the government. When unsuccessful, he filed a writ petition 2001 in the High Court challenging his dismissal. In 2003, a Division Bench disposed of his petition; while they did not interfere with the punishment order, they considered his 21 years of service and allowed him to seek pensionary benefits. The court also directed the authorities to decide his claim within four months.

Following this order, Singh approached the authorities seeking pensionary benefits. However, his claim was rejected by an order dated March 17, 2004. Aggrieved, Singh filed the present writ petition challenging this rejection. During the pendency of this petition, Malook Singh passed away, and his legal representatives continued pursuing the matter.

Arguments

Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, representing Malook Singh, argued that in view of the Division Bench's earlier order and Manohar Lal vs. The State of Punjab and another (2008 SCC OnLine P&H 1863), Singh was entitled to pensionary benefits despite dismissal from service. He argued that Singh's 21 years of qualifying service made him eligible for pension regardless of his dismissal.

On the other hand, Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab, argued that since Malook Singh's dismissal order was upheld by the Division Bench, he could not claim pension. This, he argued, would render the dismissal order meaningless. Further, relying on Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, he argued that pension may not be granted to a dismissed government employee, though compassionate allowance may be considered in special circumstances.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court observed that the Division Bench earlier had upheld the dismissal order while only granting liberty to approach authorities for pensionary benefits. It noted that the Division Bench did not directly grant pension, but merely asked the authorities to consider the claim.

Secondly, examining Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the court found that a dismissed employee is explicitly not entitled to pension, though may be paid compassionate allowance in special circumstances. The court noted that if pension were to be extended based merely on length of service, any dismissal or removal orders would become meaningless. Further, the court also distinguished the Manohar Lal case. The court explained that Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules was not even brought to the attention of the bench in that case.

Thirdly, the court analyzed Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules (PPR). It noted the disciplinary authority is required to consider length of service and pension claims when passing dismissal orders; however, once such an order is upheld, the dismissed employee cannot claim pension as a matter of right. Further, examining Rule 9.18 of PPR, the court explained that retiring pension is granted only to officers who are permitted to retire after completing service, or who are compulsorily retired after completing qualifying service. It held that the intent of this rule is to deny pension to persons dismissed from service.

Finally, the court noted that there was an unexplained delay of seven years in filing the petition. The challenged order was passed in 2004 while Malook Singh approached the court only in 2011. Thus, the court dismissed the petition. However, it noted that Singh could still claim compassionate allowance under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.

Decided on: 21.02.2025

Neutral Citation No: 2025:PHHC:025452 | Malook Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab

Click Here To Read/Download The Order