Dismissal From Police Service Forfeits Right to Pension Despite Years of Service; Police Constable Who Remained Absent Without Permission and Went Abroad Cannot Claim Pensionary Benefits: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Ex. Sepoy Dilawar Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 07.10.2026
Citation: CWP-8934 of 2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a police employee dismissed from service for misconduct cannot claim pension merely on the basis of the length of service rendered before dismissal. Where the applicable service and pension rules provide for forfeiture of past qualifying service consequent upon dismissal, the employee has no enforceable right to ordinary pension.
The Court clarified that Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, governs pension upon retirement and cannot be invoked by an employee whose service has been terminated through disciplinary dismissal. Under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, compassionate allowance may be granted in deserving cases involving special considerations, but ordinary pension cannot be claimed as a matter of right following dismissal.
Summary
The petitioner, a former Punjab Police Constable appointed on 11.08.1994, challenged the denial of pensionary benefits following his dismissal from service on 11.08.2008. He had proceeded on sanctioned leave in February 2007, which was subsequently extended until 02.08.2007, but failed to resume duty thereafter. The departmental record revealed that he had travelled to England without obtaining Ex-India leave or informing the authorities.
Despite repeated notices, the petitioner neither resumed duty nor participated in the departmental inquiry, which consequently proceeded ex parte. His dismissal was upheld in subsequent departmental proceedings.
Before the High Court, the petitioner confined his prayer to pensionary benefits, contending that he had completed 11 years and nine months of regular service and could not be deprived of pension solely because he had been dismissed.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court observed that pensionary entitlement must be determined in accordance with the statutory consequences of dismissal and not merely the duration of employment. Relying upon Malook Singh (since deceased) through LRs v. State of Punjab, CWP-3993 of 2011, decided on 21.02.2025, the Court reiterated that dismissal for misconduct disentitles an employee to ordinary pension, notwithstanding previous qualifying service.
The Court further noted that the disciplinary authority had considered the petitioner’s pension claim while imposing dismissal. His prolonged unauthorised absence, foreign travel without permission and failure to substantiate his medical explanation reinforced the conclusion that no interference was warranted.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish any statutory or enforceable legal right to pension following his dismissal from police service.
The Court upheld the denial of pensionary benefits, observing that the petitioner’s previous service could not override the consequences of disciplinary dismissal under the applicable Punjab Police Rules and Punjab Civil Services Rules.