Chandigarh, March 5:
The Punjab-Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a dismissed Punjab Police officer seeking pension benefits. The court ruled that dismissal from service results in the forfeiture of pension rights under Punjab Civil Service Rules.
The court clarified that pension is granted only to employees who retire from service, while a dismissed employee can only apply for compassionate allowance under exceptional circumstances.
Case Background
Malook Singh, who had previously served in the armed forces, joined the Punjab Police in October 1975. However, following disciplinary proceedings, he was dismissed from service on May 29, 1999. His appeals and mercy petition were also rejected. Seeking relief, he approached the High Court, but in its order dated May 16, 2003, the court declined to interfere in the matter.
However, considering his 21 years of service, the court allowed him the liberty to approach the authorities for pension benefits. Despite this, his request was turned down.
Feeling aggrieved, Malook Singh filed a petition in the High Court, seeking pension benefits. During the pendency of the case, he passed away, after which his legal representatives continued the proceedings. They argued that an employee with over 21 years of service should not be deprived of pension benefits solely due to dismissal.
High Court’s Ruling
The court observed that Malook Singh’s dismissal was final, as a previous division bench had refused to intervene in the matter. Hence, the only point for consideration was whether a dismissed employee could claim pension benefits.
Upon reviewing Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, the court noted that it explicitly bars dismissed employees from receiving pensions. However, it allows for the provision of compassionate allowance, but only under extraordinary circumstances.
Additionally, the court took note of the unexplained seven-year delay in filing the petition. Malook Singh’s pension request had been rejected in 2004, yet he approached the High Court only in 2011. Taking these factors into account, the court dismissed the petition.
About The Author
