Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired Indian Army officer seeking pensionary benefits for his civil re-employment with the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC), holding that the nature of his appointment did not confer any right to pension.Justice Harpreet Singh Brar passed these orders while rejecting the plea of Lt Col Ashok Bembey (retd), who challenged a 2016 order of PSERC denying him pension, gratuity, and full leave encashment for the period he served the commission after retiring from the Army. The petitioner contended that he rendered over 12 years of uninterrupted service with PSERC against a sanctioned post and was therefore entitled to pension under the Punjab Civil Services (PCS) Rules.
Chandigarh: Farmers’ Income Increase By 2047, Yamunanagar Wastewater Order, HC Pay Scale Directive And More
The court, however, observed that pension eligibility is determined not merely by length of service but by the nature and conditions of appointment. While reiterating that pension is a constitutional right and not a bounty, the court clarified that such a right accrues only when service conditions and applicable rules expressly permit it.Justice Brar observed that the petitioner was appointed on a re-employment basis through the Punjab Ex-Servicemen Corporation in 2002, with his appointment letter clearly stating that the post was temporary and terminable at any time. The court found no evidence to show that PSERC ever created or intended to create permanent or pensionable posts. On the contrary, subsequent service regulations notified in 2015 expressly limited appointments to deputation, re-employment, or contract basis and excluded pensionary benefits altogether.The court also rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the Punjab Civil Services Rules, observing that their applicability to PSERC employees was never established. It further held that even under the PCS Rules, pension could not be claimed unless the employment was substantive and permanent, conditions that were admittedly absent in the petitioner’s case.Addressing the petitioner’s argument that he completed more than the minimum qualifying service of 10 years, the court held that duration alone cannot override statutory requirements. Citing recent Supreme Court judgments, the court emphasised that courts cannot direct the grant of pension contrary to service rules or in the absence of a pension scheme.