The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has clarified that a police officer dismissed from service following criminal conviction is not entitled to provisional pension, even if the sentence is suspended and appeal is pending—unless the conviction itself is stayed or set aside. The ruling upholds prior precedents and the relevant Service Rules, limiting provisional pension claims in such circumstances. The judgment is binding on all subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/29220/2025 of MOOL RAJ Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011567202025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within its jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law / Pension Law (Government Service Pension in cases of dismissal and conviction) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a dismissed government servant, convicted of an offence, but whose sentence is suspended pending appeal, is entitled to provisional pension under the Punjab Civil Services Rules. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that, according to existing precedents and the Punjab Civil Services Rules, a government servant who has been dismissed from service and convicted by a criminal court is not entitled to any pensionary benefits, including provisional pension, unless the conviction or dismissal is set aside or the conviction is stayed. Suspension of sentence does not amount to a stay of conviction. The petitioner can, however, apply for compassionate allowance, which should be considered as per the Rules. This reflects consistent application of the Rules and prior High Court decisions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, a former Assistant Sub Inspector in Punjab Police, was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentenced to four years’ RI, and dismissed from service. His sentence was suspended pending appeal, but conviction was not stayed. He sought release of provisional pension and relied on prior judgments, but the State opposed citing adverse High Court precedents. Court disposed the petition, directing him to seek compassionate allowance instead. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, similar benches hearing pension cases involving dismissal and criminal conviction |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that suspension of sentence (pending appeal) is not the same as a stay of conviction; only a stay of conviction or setting aside of dismissal/conviction entitles an employee to pensionary benefits.
- Confirms that a dismissed and convicted police officer (or similarly placed government servant) is not eligible for provisional pension under existing Rules.
- Reminds lawyers to advise clients to seek compassionate allowance as a separate remedy if pension rights are lost due to dismissal and conviction.
- Clarifies that Ajit Singh and Darshan Singh are distinguishable where conviction/dismissal is still operative.
- Procedural takeaway: Applications for compassionate allowance must be decided by the authority within six weeks when made.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court outlined the petitioner’s conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and concurrent dismissal from service.
- Petitioner’s reliance on Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab and Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab was distinguished based on the absence of a stay on conviction and the operative dismissal order.
- The State pointed out, and the Court accepted, two recent binding precedents—Malook Singh and Raka Ghirra—which held that under Rule 2.5 of Civil Services Rules Chapter II Volume II, a dismissed employee who is also convicted is not eligible for pension, provisional or otherwise.
- The Court highlighted the legal distinction: suspension of sentence does not equate to the setting aside or staying of a conviction, which is necessary for restoration of pension rights.
- Ultimately, the Court gave the petitioner liberty to apply for compassionate allowance, directing the government to decide such an application expeditiously.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought a direction for release of provisional pension, arguing that mere conviction (pending appeal) and dismissal should not deprive of provisional pension.
- Cited Ajit Singh and Darshan Singh to contend entitlement to provisional pension even after conviction and dismissal, at least until conviction is finally upheld.
- Submitted that he is the only breadwinner, responsible for elderly and dependent family.
- Requested prompt decision on his representation.
Respondent (State)
- Argued that under binding precedents (Malook Singh, Raka Ghirra), dismissed and convicted employees are not entitled to pension.
- Emphasised that the petitioner’s sentence is only suspended, not the conviction.
- Relied upon Rule 2.5 of Civil Services Rules, which bars pension for those dismissed/removed for misconduct.
- Opposed grant of provisional pension on these grounds.
Factual Background
The petitioner, formerly an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Punjab Police, was named in an FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and subsequently convicted by the Trial Court, receiving a four-year sentence. Though his sentence was suspended by the High Court pending appeal, the conviction and order of dismissal from service remain operative. He applied to the authorities for provisional pension, citing precedents that permitted pension despite conviction under certain circumstances, but his case was opposed by the State relying on stricter, more recent judgments. The Court heard arguments from both sides and disposed of the matter by directing the petitioner to seek compassionate allowance.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 2.5 of Civil Services Rules Chapter II Volume II: The judgment reiterates that this rule governs eligibility for pension. The rule provides that a government servant dismissed or removed for misconduct is not eligible for pension or gratuity, unless otherwise decided by the competent authority in special cases.
- The Court distinguished between “suspension of sentence” and “stay of conviction”—only the latter would affect the bar on pension.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded or discussed in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed that if the petitioner files an application for compassionate allowance, the authorities must decide it within six weeks of filing.
- No new guidelines or substantive procedural innovations are reported in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and reaffirms direct precedents of the same High Court regarding pension rights of dismissed and convicted government servants.