Key Judgment: Dismissal Revokes Pension Rights
The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking pension for dismissed Punjab Police officer Malook Singh. Justice Jagmohan Bansal ruled that dismissal revokes pension rights under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The court stated that only retired employees can claim pensions. Granting pension after dismissal would undermine disciplinary actions.
Case Background
Malook Singh joined Punjab Police in 1975 after serving in the Army. Authorities dismissed him on May 29, 1999, after disciplinary proceedings. His appeals and mercy petition failed. In 2003, the High Court upheld his dismissal but allowed him to seek pensionary benefits due to his 21 years of service.
Singh filed a pension request, but authorities rejected it. He then moved the High Court again. He passed away during the case, and his legal heirs continued the fight.
Arguments
Singh’s legal team claimed the 2003 order recognized his pension rights. They cited Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab (2008) to argue that dismissal should not deny pension for employees with over 21 years of service.
Punjab’s Advocate General countered that the court had only allowed consideration of Singh’s claim, not guaranteed pension. He pointed to Rule 2.5, which denies pension to dismissed employees. Allowing pension in such cases, he argued, would weaken dismissal as a punishment.
Court’s Reasoning
Dismissal Was Final: The court ruled that Singh’s dismissal stood firm. It only needed to decide if a dismissed employee could claim pension.
Rule 2.5 Applies: The court found that Rule 2.5 clearly bars pensions for dismissed employees. While a compassionate allowance may apply in rare cases, pension requires retirement.
Case Distinction: The court ruled that Manohar Lal did not apply since it dealt with different rules and did not consider Rule 2.5.
Delay Weakened Case: Singh’s pension request was denied in 2004, but he waited until 2011 to approach the court. The court ruled that this delay further hurt his claim.
Conclusion
The court upheld the pension denial. It reaffirmed that only retired employees qualify for pensions, not those dismissed for misconduct.
It is understandable, for the court acting this way. However this man worked for more than 20 years, and i believe reason of dismissal should imply, especially for long term works such as Mr Singh.