Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Civil Pension to Re-Employed Ex-Serviceman in Electricity Regulatory Commission; Holds Temporary Appointment Does Not Confer Pensionary Rights
Case Name: Lt. Col. Ashok Bembey v. Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Another
Date of Judgment: 02 February 2026
Citation: CWP-16174-2017
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that pension is not an automatic entitlement and can be claimed only when permissible under the applicable service rules. The Court held that a re-employed ex-serviceman appointed on temporary/contract basis against non-pensionable posts in the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission is not entitled to civil pension or other retiral benefits, particularly where no regular posts were ever created and no service rules provided for grant of pension.
Summary: The petitioner, a retired Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army (retired on 23.11.1997), was appointed on 28.02.2002 as Deputy Director (Media and Housekeeping) in the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission on re-employment basis. His appointment was expressly stated to be temporary for an initial period of one year, renewable from time to time. His re-employment continued till 03.03.2014, after which he was appointed on contract basis until 24.12.2015.
The petitioner sought grant of civil pension, gratuity, and leave encashment for the period of his re-employment, relying upon the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982, and instructions dated 23.01.1992. His claim was rejected vide order dated 12.09.2016, leading to the present writ petition.
The respondent-Commission contended that since its inception no regular/permanent posts were ever sanctioned and appointments were only through deputation, re-employment or contract. It was further argued that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis, that the Commission never adopted the Punjab Civil Services Rules, and that the applicable instructions dated 23.01.1992 did not provide for grant of pension to re-employed ex-servicemen.
The Court observed that pension, though a constitutional right, is subject to fulfillment of statutory conditions and applicable service rules. Relying upon State of Odisha v. Niranjan Sahoo and U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that pension can be claimed only if permissible under the relevant rules or scheme.
Upon examining the appointment letter dated 28.02.2002, the Court noted that the petitioner’s appointment was explicitly temporary in nature and terminable at any time. It further held that the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Appointment and Service Conditions of Employees) Regulations, 2015 did not provide for pension and clarified that appointments in the Commission were not against permanent pensionable posts.
The Court also noted that even the Government of Punjab, vide communication dated 24.11.2017, clarified that the petitioner was not eligible for pension or leave encashment under the instructions dated 23.01.1992. The petitioner had been paid certain amounts towards gratuity and leave encashment only after furnishing an undertaking to refund the same if found ineligible.
The Court held that the determinative factor for pension is the nature of appointment and applicable rules at the time the service was rendered. Since the petitioner was appointed on temporary/contract basis against non-pensionable posts and the Commission never intended to create regular posts, he could not claim pensionary benefits merely on the basis of length of service.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for civil pension and other pensionary benefits, holding that he was not entitled to the same in view of the nature of his appointment and absence of any enabling provision in the applicable regulations.