Court rules pension entitlement requires substantive, permanent employment; dismisses petitioner's claim for benefits from Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission.
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, dismissed the petition of Lt. Col. Ashok Bembey, a retired Commissioned Officer from the Indian Army, seeking pensionary benefits following his civil re-employment with the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC). The judgment, delivered on February 2, 2026, underscores the necessity for substantive and permanent employment to qualify for pension, a principle rooted in constitutional and service law.
The petitioner, Lt. Col. Ashok Bembey, who served in the Indian Army from June 1973 until his retirement in November 1997, was appointed as Deputy Director (Media and Housekeeping) in PSERC in March 2002. His appointment, initially on a temporary basis, was renewed till March 2014, after which he continued on a contractual basis till December 2025. Despite 12 years of service, his claim for pension, gratuity, and leave encashment was rejected by PSERC, leading him to file the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
The court emphasized that pension is not a bounty but a constitutional right, contingent upon compliance with service rules that demand substantive and permanent employment. Justice Brar referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's stance in "State of Odisha v. Niranjan Sahoo," reinforcing that pension eligibility is not automatic but subject to meeting minimum service conditions.
Lt. Col. Bembey's reliance on the Punjab Civil Services Rules (PCS Rules) was deemed insufficient as the applicability of these rules to PSERC employees was not established. Additionally, the court noted that the draft regulations of 2012 regarding employee service conditions had not received government approval, and the finalized 2015 regulations did not provide for pension benefits.
The court further clarified that the petitioner’s appointment was temporary, as evidenced by his appointment letter, which stipulated a one-year tenure subject to termination at any time. Therefore, his employment did not meet the criteria for substantive and permanent status required under Rule 3.12 of the PCS Rules for pension eligibility.
The judgment reflects the consistent judicial view that pension entitlement is strictly governed by applicable service rules and regulations, and contractual or temporary employment does not qualify unless explicitly stated. The decision reinforces the legal framework ensuring pension rights are aligned with established service norms and conditions.
Bottom Line:
Pensionary benefits are not an automatic entitlement; they are subject to the conditions and rules governing the service. Temporary or contractual employment does not qualify for pension unless explicitly provided under the applicable rules or service terms.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Rule 3.12 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Appointment and Service Conditions of Employees) Regulations, 2015, Instructions dated 23.01.1992 by Government of Punjab.
The judgment concludes with the dismissal of Lt. Col. Bembey's petition, reaffirming the necessity for clarity and adherence to service rule provisions in claims of pension and other retirement benefits.
