IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 CWP-1921-2023 Date of decision: 16.07.2026 Charanjit Kaur and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punjab. **** NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, for quashing the reply dated 01.10.2022 (Annexure P-8), vide which the claim of the petitioners for family pension and other benefits in view of the missing report dated 25.07.2018 as regards to Paramjit Singh (husband and father of petitioners No.1 and 2), has been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to release the pending salary, leave encashment, GPF, ex- gratia and family pension to the petitioners, in view of the instructions issued by the State dated 27.03.1991 (Annexure P-3), from the date when the missing report of Paramjit Singh was filed, and to pay the arrears along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accrual till the actual realization of the same. 2. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that Sh. Paramjit Singh (husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner VINAY 2026.07.24 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-1921-2023 -2- No.2) joined the Police Department on 08.12.1988 as a Constable, and was subsequently promoted to the post of Head Constable. It is the case of the petitioners that Sh. Paramjit Singh went missing since July, 2018, whereupon, DDR No.6 dated 18.07.2018 and missing report was registered at Police Line, Fazilka, vide DDR No.18 dated 25.07.2018. Subsequently, FIR No.0085 dated 10.07.2019 under Section 365 IPC was registered at Police Station City, Fazilka, District Fazilka. It has further been averred that instead of complying with the instructions dated 27.03.1991 (Annexure P-3) regarding grant of pensionary benefits in case of missing of a Government employee, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, dismissed Sh. Paramjit Singh, vide order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure P-4), on account of absence from duty. Against the said order, mercy appeal (Annexure P-5) was filed by petitioner No.1, which was considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, vide order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-6). Thereafter, the petitioners served a legal notice dated 10.09.2022 (Annexure P-7) for grant of pending salary, leave encashment, GPF and family pension in respect of of Head Constable Paramjit Singh No.927/Fazilka, who had remained missing since 23.07.2018. The said legal notice was replied by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, vide letter dated 01.10.2022 (Annexure P-8), wherein it was stated that since Head Constable Paramjit Singh had been dismissed from service, therefore, the family is not entitled for pensionary benefits. Aggrieved against the said reply dated 01.10.2022 (Annexure P-8), the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of the said reply with further directions to release VINAY 2026.07.24 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-1921-2023 -3- the pending salary, leave encashment, GPF ex-gratia and family pension to the petitioners. 3. Reply by way of an affidavit of Mohan Lal, PPS, Superintendent of Police (HQ), Fazilka, District Fazilka, on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 has been filed, wherein it has been stated as under:- “3. That the facts of the case are as under:- (i). HC Paramjit Singh 927/FZK (50/Moga) (now dismissed) (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') joined the services of the Punjab Police Deptt. as Constable on 08.12.1988. (ii). The employee had two good entries and nineteen bad entries. The employee was in the habit of remaining absent. (iii). When Head Constable Paramjit Singh 927/FZK (50/Moga) was posted at District Moga on dated 26.10.2016, he was given the duty of Peshi and due to his remaining absent from duty, the departmental proceedings were initiated against him vide order dated 06.01.2017 of the S.S.P., Moga. During the enquiry, was found that the employee remained absent for 239 days 21 hours 20 minutes. (iv). On being transferred from Moga to Fazilka, the employee who was relieved from Police Lines, Moga on 12.10.2017, was required to be present at District Fazilka on 13.07.2017 but the employee remained absent for about ten months and 19 hours and thereafter, the employee again remained absent. (v). Two different departmental proceedings were initiated against the employee for his remaining absent on two different times and the said departmental proceedings were kept pending till he comes back on duty. The notices were also sent to the employee at his address and the notices had been received by the petitioner No. 1 (i.e. wife of the employee). (vi). Regarding missing of the employee, an FIR No.85 dated 10.07.2019 u/s 365 IPC P.S. City Fazilka was registered. (vii). The detail of punishment awarded to the employee from time to time, is given below: (a). Vide order dated No.4256-60/PA dated 31.07.1999, the service of two years of the employee was forfeited due VINAY 2026.07.24 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-1921-2023 -4- to his remaining absent for 172 days. (b). Vide order dated No.61-65/PA dated 04.04.2000, the service of one year of the employee was forfeited due to his remaining absent for 123 days. (c) Vide order dated No.5374-78/PA dated 31.10.2001, the service of two years of the employee was forfeited due to his remaining absent for 115 days. (d). Vide order dated No.5400-04/PA dated 11.12.2004, the service of one year of the employee was forfeited due to drinking on duty. (e). Vide order dated No.5415-19/PA dated 11.12.2004, the service of two years of the employee was forfeited due to his remaining absent for 165 days. (f). Vide order dated No.3934-38/PA dated 30.08.2006, the service of one year of the employee was forfeited due to his remaining absent for 86 days. (g). Vide order dated No.3741-45/PA dated 12.11.2008, the service of four years of the employee was forfeited due to his remaining absent for 154 days. (h). Vide order dated No.2061-65/Steno dated 22.03.2009, the service of two years of the employee was forfeited due to his remaining absent for 53 days. (i). Vide order dated No.6081-85/PA dated 22.12.2009, the service of two years of the employee was forfeited due to his remaining absent for 107 days. (j). Vide order dated No.980-84/PA dated 13.04.2010, the service of two years of the employee was forfeited due to his remaining absent for one day in Peshi of criminal cases. (k) Due to registration of an FIR No.116 dated 01.10.2005 u/s 341,323,506,34 IPC P.S. Bilga against the employee, the service of one year on permanent basis was forfeited vide order No. 5051-55/PA dated 02.11.2006. 4. That the employee remained absent from duty for a total period of 1798 days (4 years 11 months 2 days) without duty without pay. Apart From above, the employee also remained absent for 239 days in the year 2016. The employee was dismissed from the Punjab Police Deptt. on 17.12.2021 as per rule No. 16.02(1) of the Punjab Police Rules. 5. That no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the respondent Department in the present matter. Since the employee was dismissed from the service of the Punjab Police Department, so the Govt. instructions/policy dealing with the cases of missing employees are not applicable to the present case. The VINAY 2026.07.24 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-1921-2023 -5- missing report of the employee has nothing has to do with the dismissal order of the employee. 6. That as regards the release of the retiral dues, etc. of the employee, it is submitted that the Department shall consider the claim of the petitioners regarding release of retiral benefits, etc. as per law/rules only after it becomes final whether the employee is alive or dead and a documentary evidence/order of the competent court of law is produced. 7. That only plea of the petitioners that they are entitled to get the retiral benefits, etc. in respect of the missing employee on the basis of the Govt. instructions/policy, is false and baseless in view of the position explained above. No cause of action has accrued to the petitioners to file the present petition.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since Paramjit Singh (husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2) had remained missing since 23.07.2018, and a period of seven years has elapsed, he is liable to be presumed dead. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the pensionary benefits and the action of the respondents in not granting the same, is totally illegal and arbitrary and unsustainable, and thus, directions may be issued to the respondents to release the said benefits along with interest. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that Paramjit Singh (husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2) had been dismissed from service, vide order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure P- 4), and mercy appeal preferred by petitioner No.1 had also been rejected by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-6). However, since the said orders have not been challenged by the petitioners, the dismissal order has attained finality. Further, since he had already been dismissed from service on account of absence from duty, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the pensionary benefits. VINAY 2026.07.24 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-1921-2023 -6- 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The facts are not in dispute that Paramjit Singh (husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2) had joined the service in the Police Department as a Constable on 08.12.1988 and was subsequently, promoted to the post of Head Constable. While he was in service, he was awarded various punishments which have been enumerated in para 3 of the preliminary submissions of the reply filed by the respondents, and has been reproduced hereinabove. Furthermore, he remained absent from duty in the year 2016 for 239 days 21 hours and 20 minutes and in the year 2017, he remained absent from duty for 10 months 19 hours and 15 minutes. Thereafter, he remained absent from duty continuously since 18.07.2018. Consequently, departmental proceedings were initiated against the husband of petitioner No.1 for remaining absent from duty in the years 2016 and 2017, however, those were kept pending as the disciplinary proceedings initiated for absence from duty since 18.07.2018 were culminated into passing an order of dismissal from service dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure P-4). From a perusal of contents stated in para 3 of the reply filed by the State, it is clear that the husband of petitioner No.1 was having 19 bad entries; and was in the habit of remaining absent; he remained absent from duty in the year 2016 for 239 days 21 hours and 20 minutes and in the year 2017, for 10 months 19 hours and 15 minutes. He was awarded the following punishments:- Sr. No. Order dated Punishment Reason for punishment 1. 31.07.1999 Forfeiture of two years service Remained absent from duty for 172 days VINAY 2026.07.24 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-1921-2023 -7- 2. 04.04.2000 Forfeiture of one year service Remained absent from duty for 123 days 3. 31.10.2001 Forfeiture of two years service Remained absent from duty for 115 days 4. 11.12.2004 Forfeiture of one year service Drinking on duty 5. 11.12.2004 Forfeiture of two years service Remained absent from duty for 165 days 6. 30.08.2006 Forfeiture of one year service Remained absent from duty for 86 days 7. 12.11.2008 Forfeiture of four years service Remained absent from duty for 154 days 8. 22.03.2009 Forfeiture of two years service Remained absent from duty for 53 days 9. 22.12.2009 Forfeiture of two years service Remained absent from duty for 107 days 10. 13.04.2010 Forfeiture of two years service Remained absent for one day in Peshi of criminal cases 11. 02.11.2006 Forfeiture of one year service on permanent basis Due to registration of an FIR against him 8. In this manner, the husband of petitioner No.1 remained absent from duty for 1798 days (04 years 11 months and 02 days) without pay. In the present petition, neither order of dismissal dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure P-4) has been challenged nor the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-6) has been challenged and the only prayer made in the petition is to release the pensionary benefits. The right to receive pension is not an independent or absolute right. It is a statutory right regulated by the applicable service rules. Once an employee stands dismissed from service, the consequences flowing from such dismissal of govern the entitlement to pensionary benefits, unless the order of dismissal itself is set aside. 9. Similar issue has been dealt with by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Malook Singh (since deceased) through his LRs v. State of Punjab and others : 2025(6) SLR 307, wherein it has been VINAY 2026.07.24 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-1921-2023 -8- held as under: - “8. Pension is governed by The Punjab Civil Services Rules and Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short “PPR”). Chapter II Volume-II of said Rules provides for General Provisions relating to grant of pensions. Rule 2.5 provides that pension may not be granted to a government employee who is dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, however, he may be granted compassionate allowance. Rule 2.5 of Chapter II Volume- II of The Punjab Civil Services Rules reads as:- “No pension may be granted to a Government employee dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency; but to Government employee so dismissed or removed, compassionate allowances may be granted when they are deserving of special consideration: Provided that the allowance granted to any Government employee shall not exceed two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate. Note 1.–This rule vests Government with an absolute discretion to grant or not to grant any compassionate allowance, the only restriction being that if granted, it shall not exceed the maximum of two-thirds of the pension that would be admissible to the officer concerned on retirement on medical certificate. It is practically impossible in view of the wide variations that naturally exist in the circumstances attending each case, to lay down categorically, precise principles that can uniformly be applied to individual cases. Each case has, therefore, to be considered on its merits and a conclusion has to be reached on the question whether there were any such extenuating features in the case as would make the punishment awarded, though it may have been necessary in the interest of Government, unduly hard on the individual. In considering this question it has been the practice to take into account not only the actual misconduct or course of misconduct which occasioned the dismissal or removal of the officer, but also the kind of service he has rendered. Where the course of misconduct carries with it the legitimate inference that the officer's service has been dishonest there can seldom be any good case for a compassionate allowance. Poverty is not an essential condition precedent to the grant of a compassionate allowance, but special regard is also occasionally paid to the fact that the officer has a wife and children dependent upon him, though this factor by VINAY 2026.07.24 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-1921-2023 -9- itself, is not, except perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances, sufficient for the grant of a compassionate allowance. Note 2.–The report of the Accountant-General is required in all cases of grant of compassionate allowances. Note 3.–No Government employee even if belonging to a class entitled to commute ordinary pension, is entitled to commute a compassionate allowance; a commutation to such an allowance may be sanctioned by a competent authority only on proof that the proceeds of the commutation will be invested for the permanent benefit of the commutor’s family. Note 4.–In cases, where it is proposed to grant to a Government employee dismissed or removed form service, a compassionate allowance, the sanctioning authority should not condone deficiencies in service, for the purpose of determining the amount of pension that would have been admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate on the basis of which the compassionate allowance is calculated.” 9. From the perusal of aforesaid Rule, it is evident that a dismissed employee is not entitled to pension, however, he may be paid compassionate allowance in special circumstances. The petitioner was dismissed from service and his dismissal order stands upheld, thus, his qualifying service lost significance. If pension is extended on the basis of length of service, the order of dismissal or removal from service would become meaningless. 10. Rule 16.2 of PPR provides that disciplinary authority while passing order of dismissal from service shall take care of length of service and claim of pension. The order of dismissal from service has been upheld, thus, petitioner cannot claim pension as a matter of right. 11. The petitioner is relying upon judgment of this Court in Manohar Lal (Supra) wherein different set of Rules are discussed. Rule 2.5 of The Punjab Civil Services Rules was not brought in the knowledge of learned Single Judge. 12. Rule 9.18 of PPR also provides for pension. It categorically provides that retiring pension is granted to an officer who is permitted to retire from service or who is compulsorily retired after completing qualifying service. For the ready reference, Rule 9.18 of 1934 Rules is reproduced as below:- “Retiring pension - (1) A retiring pension is granted to an officer - VINAY 2026.07.24 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-1921-2023 -10- (a) who is permitted to retire from service after completing qualifying service for twenty-five years or such lesser period as may, for any class of officers, be pre-scribed; or (b) who is compulsorily retired under sub- rule (2) after completing ten years’ qualifying service. (2) The Inspector-General of Police may, with the previous approval of the State Government, compulsorily retire any Police Officer, other than that belonging to Indian Police Service or Punjab State Police Service, who has completed ten years’ qualifying service, without giving any reasons. An officer who is so compulsorily retired will not be entitled to claim any special compensation for his retirement. Note 1. - The right to retire compulsorily shall not be exercised except when it is in the public interest to dispense with the further services of an officer, such as on account of inefficiency, dishonesty, corruption or infamous conduct. Thus the rule is intended for use - (i) against an officer whose efficiency is impaired but against whom it is not desirable to make formal charges of inefficiency or who has ceased to be fully efficient ( i.e., when an officer’s value is clearly incommensurate with the pay which he draws) but not to such a degree as to warrant his retirement on a compassionate allowance. It is not the intention to use the provisions of this rule as a financial weapon, that is to say, the provision should be used only in the case of an officer who is considered unfit for retention on personal as opposed to financial grounds; (ii) in cases where reputation for corruption, dishonesty or infamous conduct is clearly established even though no specific instance is likely to be proved. Note 2. - The officer shall be given an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make against the proposed action, and such representation shall be taken into consideration, before his compulsory retirement is ordered. In all cases of compulsory retirement of enrolled police officers, the Inspector-General of Police shall effect such retirement with the previous approval of the State Government in accordance VINAY 2026.07.24 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-1921-2023 -11- with the instructions, if any, issued by the Government on the subject from time to time. (3) The officer, whose duty it would be to fill up the appointment if vacant, shall record his orders on the application to retire, which, if in vernacular, should be accompanied by a translation in English. If the officer who applies for pension, is permitted to retire, the application shall be forwarded with the pension papers (vide Article 906 and 930, Civil Service Regulations).” 13. The aforesaid Rule makes it clear that pension is available to a person who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying service or who is compulsorily retired after completing qualifying service. The intent and purport of aforesaid Rule is to deny pension to those persons who are dismissed from service. If pension is granted irrespective of punishment including dismissal from service, Rule 9.18 of PPR would lose its significance. This Court is of the considered opinion that if pension or other pensionary benefits are granted despite dismissal from service, every police official would be entitled to pension on the basis of his length of service.” 10. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that since the husband of petitioner No.1 was missing since 23.07.2018, and after a period of seven years, he is liable to be considered as dead is concerned, the same deserves to be rejected as no declaration to that effect has been placed on record from the competent Court. 11. Keeping in view the law laid down and the facts of the present case, finding no merit in the present case, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 16.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2026.07.24 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment