Chandigarh, December 18:
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that a retired Inspector General of Police is entitled to have his pension revised based on the upgraded pay scale of the Director-General of Police position. The Court emphasized that even if an individual retires early from a post, they are still eligible for the pension benefits corresponding to any subsequent upgrades to that position.
In their ruling, Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma noted, “It categorically underlined therein that even when any officer is appointed on an ex-cadre post, thereupon he is entitled to equivalent pay, perks and status of the cadre post. Therefore, even if the present appellant was holding an ex-cadre post at the time when he sought his voluntary retirement yet when in terms of the above hereinabove extracted rules, he became entitled to all the pay, perks and status attaching to the cadre post i.e Inspector General of Police, Punjab.”
The case involved B.S. Dhanewal, who was transferred from his role as Inspector-General of Police to a non-cadre post following the dismissal of the Akali government in Punjab on February 20, 1980. Dhanewal opted for premature retirement on June 5, 1980, before a significant shift occurred in the Punjab Police system.
In 1982, after his retirement, the Punjab government introduced the Director-General of Police position, an upgraded role from Inspector-General. The new post became effective on July 16, 1982, and was filled by an officer junior to Dhanewal. Dhanewal contended that had he not retired early, he would have been the first to take on the position of Director-General upon reaching the normal retirement age of 58 in 1983, entitling him to the upgraded pay scale and benefits.
The Court, after considering the arguments, referred to the case of Agia Ram and others vs. Union of India and Others, 2012 (1) SCT 540 to assert the principle that even when a post is upgraded, individuals who previously held that position are still entitled to the benefits of the upgraded post, regardless of their retirement status. The Court stated, “the principle that even when a post is substituted and though on the date of upgradation of the post, the person who were earlier adorning the post, which subsequently became upgraded but had retired, on such substitution/upgradation taking place, yet the benefit of the subsequently upgraded post but cannot be snatched from those persons who were earlier thereto adorning the apposite post concerned, that is, of the Inspector General of Police.”
The Court further added, “Even if the present appellant had sought pre-mature retirement on 05.06.1980, but yet in case if he had not sought pre-mature retirement and would have been normally superannuated on 03.08.1983, that is the date, when the post of Inspector General of Police, which he was earlier occupying, thus subsequently became upgraded on 16.07.1982, qua the fullest beneficient effect of the upgradation of the said earlier post of Inspector General of Police, to the post of Director General of Police, but was prima facie to be assigned to the present appellant, thus irrespective of the fact that he had taken pre-mature retirement.”
As a result of this decision, the Court allowed the letter patent appeal and directed the authorities to revise the pensionary benefits of the appellant, effective from January 1, 1986, along with an interest rate of 6% per annum.
About The Author
