High Court Rules Against Pension for Retired Army Officer's Civil Service
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant judgment, dismissing a writ petition filed by a retired Indian Army officer who sought pensionary benefits for his subsequent civil re-employment with the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC). The court firmly held that the nature of his appointment did not confer any legal right to pension, gratuity, or full leave encashment.
Details of the Petition and Court's Rationale
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar passed the decisive orders while rejecting the plea of retired Lieutenant Colonel Ashok Bembey. The petitioner had challenged a 2016 order issued by PSERC, which denied him pension, gratuity, and complete leave encashment for the period he served the commission after retiring from the Army. Colonel Bembey contended that he rendered over 12 years of uninterrupted service with PSERC against a sanctioned post, thereby entitling him to pension under the Punjab Civil Services (PCS) Rules.
The court, however, provided a nuanced interpretation of pension eligibility. It observed that such eligibility is determined not merely by the length of service but critically by the specific nature and conditions of the appointment itself. While the bench reiterated that pension is a constitutional right and not a mere bounty, it clarified that this right accrues only when the service conditions and the applicable rules expressly permit it.
Examination of Appointment Terms and Service Regulations
Justice Brar meticulously examined the facts of the case. The petitioner was appointed on a re-employment basis in 2002 through the Punjab Ex-Servicemen Corporation. Crucially, his appointment letter explicitly stated that the post was temporary and terminable at any time without prior notice.
The court found no evidence to suggest that PSERC had ever created or intended to create permanent or pensionable posts. This position was further reinforced by subsequent service regulations notified by the commission in 2015. These regulations expressly limited all appointments to one of three categories:
- Deputation
- Re-employment
- Contract basis
Importantly, these regulations categorically excluded the grant of any pensionary benefits altogether for such appointments.
Court's Rejection of Legal Arguments
The bench also rejected the petitioner's primary reliance on the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The court observed that the applicability of these PCS Rules to PSERC employees was never satisfactorily established in the proceedings. It held that, even if the rules were applicable, pension could not be claimed unless the employment was both substantive and permanent—conditions that were admittedly absent in Colonel Bembey's case.
Addressing the argument that the petitioner had completed more than the minimum qualifying service period of 10 years, the court delivered a firm principle: duration of service alone cannot override explicit statutory requirements. Citing recent judgments from the Supreme Court of India, Justice Brar emphasized that courts cannot direct the grant of pension contrary to established service rules or in the absence of a formally constituted pension scheme.
This ruling underscores the legal principle that contractual and appointment terms take precedence, and pension benefits are strictly governed by the specific rules framework under which an individual is employed, not by the mere passage of time in service.
