Ex-Serviceman Re-Employed On Contractual Basis Not Entitled To Civil Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Dismissing a writ petition filed by an ex-serviceman seeking pensionary benefits for his civil re-employment, the High Court has held that pension cannot be claimed merely on the basis of long duration of service, unless the appointment is substantive, permanent, and governed by rules providing for pension.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "Since the very inception, the petitioner was well aware of the fact that he was a temporary employee whose services could be terminated at any point of time. Thus, there never existed an occasion, where he could have had a legitimate expectation to be treated as a permanent and regular employee by virtue of the nature of his employment. As such, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any pension or pensionary benefits in view of the nature of his appointment or in terms of the applicable rules and regulations."
Background
The petitioner, a former Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army who retired in November 1997, was re-employed as Deputy Director (Media and Housekeeping) with the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC) in March 2002. His re-employment was renewed periodically until March 2014, after which he continued on a contractual basis.
Though already drawing military pension, the petitioner sought civil pension, gratuity, and leave encashment in respect of his re-employment spanning over 12 years. His claim was rejected by PSERC through a speaking order dated 12.09.2016, leading to the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
PSERC opposed the claim, asserting that, it is a statutory regulatory body with no permanent or pensionable posts and all appointments since inception were by deputation, re-employment, or contract.
The petitioner was appointed purely on temporary and contractual basis, with explicit terms denying pensionary benefits and applicable instructions dated 23.01.1992 governing re-employed ex-servicemen did not provide for pension, it added.
Even the PCS Rules were never adopted by PSERC and it was further argued that gratuity and leave encashment were released only after obtaining an undertaking from the petitioner, subject to government clarification, the bench said.
After hearing the submissions, the Court held that while pension is a constitutional right, it accrues only upon satisfaction of statutory eligibility conditions, including the nature of appointment.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including State of Odisha v. Niranjan Sahoo and U.P. Roadways Retired Officials Association v. State of U.P., the Court observed that duration of service alone is not determinative of pension eligibility.
Temporary, contractual, or re-employment service does not automatically qualify for pension and pension can be claimed only when service is rendered against a substantive and pensionable post, it added.
The Court found that the petitioner's appointment letter clearly stipulated temporary tenure and PSERC never intended to create regular posts.
The applicable service regulations, including the 2015 Regulations, do not provide for pension ad even the instructions dated 23.01.1992 did not envisage pensionary benefits for re-employed ex-servicemen.
"Moreover, the petitioner's claim for pension and other benefits has not been rejected because he was already drawing military pension but for the reason that the post to which he was re- employed was never pensionary in nature. Lastly, Rule 3.12 does not come to the aid of the petitioner either as the conditions laid down therein for eligibility towards pension remain unsatisfied," it added.
The Court also rejected the petitioner's reliance on draft regulations and PCS Rules, noting that they were either inapplicable or expressly barred pension for re-employed pensioners.
Petitioner-in-person.
Ms. Gargi Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Pritish Goel, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.
Title: Lt. Col. Ashok Bembey v. Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission and another