Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Pension Claim Of Dismissed Police Officer, Says Granting Same Would Make Dismissal Order Meaningless

The Court dismissed the Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the legal representatives of the Petitioner seeking pensionary benefits despite his dismissal from service. The Court held that a dismissed government employee is not entitled to a pension under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules but clarified that he may apply for compassionate allowance.

A Single Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal held, “From the perusal of aforesaid Rule, it is evident that a dismissed employee is not entitled to pension, however, he may be paid compassionate allowance in special circumstances. The petitioner was dismissed from service and his dismissal order stands upheld, thus, his qualifying service lost significance. If pension is extended on the basis of length of service, the order of dismissal or removal from service would become meaningless.”

Advocate Ish Puneet Singh appeared for the Petitioner, while DAG Aman Dhir represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner, who had retired from the Indian Army, joined the Punjab Police in 1975. He was dismissed from service in 1999, following disciplinary proceedings. His appeals against the dismissal was unsuccessful, after which, he filed a Petition before the High Court, challenging his dismissal.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court clarified that a dismissed employee was not entitled to pension, however, he might be paid compassionate allowance in special circumstances.

The Bench noted, “There is another aspect of the matter. The impugned order was passed in 2004 whereas petitioner approached this Court in 2011. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay of seven years in approaching this Court.”

“Rule 16.2 of PPR provides that disciplinary authority while passing order of dismissal from service shall take care of length of service and claim of pension. The order of dismissal from service has been upheld, thus, petitioner cannot claim pension as a matter of right.” the Bench explained.

Consequently, the Court held, “The aforesaid Rule makes it clear that pension is available to a person who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying service or who is compulsorily retired after completing qualifying service. The intent and purport of aforesaid Rule is to deny pension to those persons who are dismissed from service. If pension is granted irrespective of punishment including dismissal from service, Rule 9.18 of PPR would lose its significance. This Court is of the considered opinion that if pension or other pensionary benefits are granted despite dismissal from service, every police official would be entitled to pension on the basis of his length of service.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Malook Singh (since deceased) through his LRs. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:025452)

Click here to read/download the Order