In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the issue of pension entitlement for dismissed police officers, emphasizing the implications of dismissal on pensionary benefits under the Punjab Civil Services Rules and the Punjab Police Rules. The case involved Malook Singh, a former police officer who, after serving for over two decades, was dismissed from service and subsequently sought pensionary benefits.
Malook Singh began his tenure with the Punjab Police in 1975, following his retirement from the Indian Army. His career spanned more than 21 years until his dismissal on May 29, 1999. Following his dismissal, Singh pursued appeals through departmental channels and submitted a mercy petition to the government, all of which were unsuccessful. In 2001, he escalated the matter by filing a writ petition challenging his dismissal. The Division Bench of the High Court, in 2003, upheld the dismissal but granted Singh the liberty to approach the authorities to claim pensionary benefits, directing that his claim be adjudicated within four months.
Acting on this directive, Singh approached the relevant authorities, seeking pensionary benefits based on his lengthy service. However, his request was denied on March 17, 2004. Undeterred, Singh filed another writ petition challenging this rejection. During the pendency of this petition, Singh passed away, and his legal representatives continued the legal battle on his behalf.
The crux of the petitioners' argument was that, despite Singh's dismissal, his 21 years of qualifying service entitled him to pensionary benefits. They cited the Division Bench's earlier order and referenced the case of Manohar Lal vs. The State of Punjab and another to bolster their claim. Conversely, the state contended that granting pension to a dismissed employee would undermine the very essence of the dismissal order. They relied on Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which stipulates that a government employee dismissed for misconduct, insolvency, or inefficiency is generally not eligible for a pension, though a compassionate allowance may be granted in special circumstances.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal, presiding over the case, observed that the Division Bench had upheld Singh's dismissal, rendering the length of his service irrelevant in the context of pension eligibility. The court emphasized that if pension were granted solely based on the duration of service, it would nullify the punitive effect of dismissal orders. Furthermore, the court highlighted Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, which specifies that retiring pensions are reserved for officers who retire or are compulsorily retired after completing qualifying service, thereby excluding those who are dismissed.
The court also addressed the significant delay in Singh's pursuit of legal remedies, noting that he waited seven years after the rejection of his pension claim in 2004 before approaching the court again in 2011. This delay was deemed unexplained and contributed to the court's decision to dismiss the petition. However, the court did acknowledge the provision under Rule 2.5 for a compassionate allowance, granting the petitioners the liberty to pursue this alternative relief.
This ruling underscores the stringent application of service rules concerning pension eligibility for dismissed employees. It reinforces the principle that dismissal from service negates pension entitlements, irrespective of the length of service, while still allowing for the possibility of compassionate allowances in exceptional cases. The judgment serves as a precedent, clarifying that the punitive measure of dismissal carries significant consequences, including the forfeiture of pension rights, thereby upholding the integrity of disciplinary actions within the public service framework.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.