Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Count Dismissal Period as Qualifying Service for Pension; Upholds Treatment of Period as Dies Non Under Punjab Police Rules
Case Name: Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 15 January 2026
Citation: CWP-14407-2013
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where an order of dismissal from service has attained finality and is later modified on sympathetic grounds to a lesser punishment, the competent authority retains discretion to treat the dismissal period as dies non. The Court held that such period cannot be counted towards qualifying service for pension when the employee was earlier found to be an incorrigible habitual offender and the dismissal had been judicially upheld.
Summary: The writ petition was filed challenging the decision of a Committee of Officers rejecting the petitioner’s claim for counting the dismissal period towards length of service for pensionary benefits. The petitioner had joined the Punjab Police as a Constable on 20.05.1970. He remained absent from duty on multiple occasions in 1980, leading to departmental proceedings and his dismissal from service vide order dated 01.04.1981.
The petitioner initially succeeded in a civil suit; however, the State’s Regular Second Appeal was allowed by the High Court on 20.08.1986, wherein the dismissal was upheld, noting that the petitioner had been punished six times in ten years of service and was recorded to be an incorrigible type. Subsequent writ petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed.
On sympathetic consideration, a mercy petition filed before the Chief Minister was allowed in 2003, whereby the punishment of dismissal was reduced to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, and the petitioner was reinstated. While reinstating, the authorities specifically directed that the dismissal period would be treated as dies non. The petitioner repeatedly challenged this aspect through representations and writ petitions, culminating in the impugned decision of the Committee rejecting his claim.
The petitioner relied upon Rule 16.28(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, contending that the dismissal period ought to have been treated as suspension and counted towards pension. The State opposed the claim, arguing that reinstatement was not a consequence of acquittal but was granted purely on sympathetic grounds, and that authorities were well within their discretion to treat the dismissal period as dies non.
The High Court held that the findings recorded in the earlier judgment dated 20.08.1986, which upheld the dismissal and recorded adverse service history, continued to bind the parties. It held that the Committee had rightly considered the petitioner’s past record and exercised discretion lawfully. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the decision treating the dismissal period as dies non and refusing to count it towards qualifying service.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The impugned decision rejecting the petitioner’s claim for counting the dismissal period towards length of service for pension was upheld.