-1- CWP-28597 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28597 of 2022 Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Jasvir Kaur and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. G.S. Bajwa, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Dilsahib Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. N.P.S. Hira, DAG, Punjab. NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 04.03.2015 (Annexure P-3), vide which the husband of petitioner No.1 (Ishar Singh) was dismissed from service, and also for quashing the order dated 19.05.2015 (Annexure P-4) whereby the appeal filed against the dismissal order was rejected. Further, for quashing the order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure P-6), passed by respondent No.3, whereby the revision petition filed against the dismissal order dated 04.03.2015 and order dated 19.05.2015 was dismissed. Further, prayer has been made for issuance of directions to the respondents to grant family pension to petitioner No.1 after the death of her husband, who was dismissed from service. 2. The facts, as have been stated in the petition, are that husband of petitioner No.1 (Ishar Singh) joined the services of the Police Department as Constable and he was posted as LR/ASI at Police RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.16 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -2- CWP-28597 of 2022 Station Kotwali, District Kapurthala. FIR No.206 dated 15.12.2013 was registered against the husband of petitioner No.1 along with four other persons, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Kotwali, District Kapurthala,. Consequent thereto, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.12.2013. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the husband of petitioner No.1 and after holding enquiry, he was issued show-cause notice dated 17.12.2014 (Annexure P-2) along with the copy of the enquiry report dated 27.11.2014 (Annexure P-1) and ultimately he was dismissed from service, vide order dated 04.03.2015 (Annexure P-3). Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, he preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt., which was rejected by the appellate authority, vide order dated 19.05.2015 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, a revision petition was preferred by the husband of petitioner No.1. However, during the pendency of the revision petition, he unfortunately passed away on 10.08.2015. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2015 (Annexure P-5) on the ground that since the employee has died, therefore, no cause of action survives. Furthermore, the criminal case registered against the petitioner and other accused persons was tried by the Special Court, Kapurthala, and since during the pendency of the said trial, husband of petitioner No.1 died on 10.08.2015, the criminal proceedings against the husband of petitioner No.1 were abated and one of the accused in the said case, namely, Ramesh Lal was convicted and other three were acquitted, vide RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.16 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -3- CWP-28597 of 2022 judgment dated 25.04.2016 (Annexure P-8). Subsequently, petitioner No.1 submitted a representation before the Director General of Police, Punjab, seeking reinstatement of her deceased husband in service so as to enable her to avail pensionary and other consequential service benefits. The Director General of Police remanded the matter to the revisional authority, vide communication dated 26.10.2016, with a direction to decide revision petition of deceased employee on merits. Thereafter, respondent No.3 vide order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure P- 6) upheld the order of dismissal passed by the punishing authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. 3. The petitioners had earlier filed CWP No.3140 of 2018 claiming same relief as has been claimed in the present petition, which was withdrawn vide order dated 05.02.2020 with liberty to approach the respondents for redressal of the grievances. Thereafter, GPF amount of Rs.6,88,613/- was released to petitioner No.1, vide order dated 08.10.2020 (Annexure P-9). It has further been averred that petitioner No.1 had filed mercy petition dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure P- 10), which was sent by post on 26.08.2022 to the Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Chandigarh, and Director General of Police, Punjab, Sector 9, Chandigarh. However, no order on the said mercy petition has been passed, hence the present petition. 4. Written statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed, wherein the claim of the petitioners has been resisted by stating that husband of petitioner No.1 was a habitual absentee as before RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.16 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -4- CWP-28597 of 2022 registration of FIR No.206 dated 15.12.2013, he was awarded eight times punishment by the competent authority and in the departmental enquiry held against the husband of petitioner No.1, he was given due opportunity, and vide order dated 04.03.2015, he was dismissed from service. It has further been stated that the mercy petition filed by the petitioners has been examined by the competent authority and the same has been filed and the said fact has duly been informed to petitioner No.1. It has further been averred that since husband of petitioner No.1 was dismissed from service, therefore, as per rules, the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of family pension. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the husband of petitioner No.1 rendered about 28 years of service, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the grant of family pension and action of the respondents in not releasing the same is totally illegal and arbitrary and appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioners. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that there is no provision under the rules for grant of family pension to the family of the deceased employee, who has been dismissed from service, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the said benefit. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The facts are not in dispute that husband of petitioner No.1 was dismissed from service, vide order dated 04.03.2015 (Annexure P- 3); and the statutory appeal preferred against the dismissal order was RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.16 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -5- CWP-28597 of 2022 also rejected by the appellate authority, vide order dated 19.05.2015 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the revision petition filed against the orders dated 04.03.2015 and 19.05.2015 was also dismissed by respondent No.3, vide order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure P-6). Furthermore, the petitioners have been released the benefit of final GPF amount of Rs.6,88,613/- vide order dated 08.10.2020 (Annexure P-9). However, the petitioners have failed to point out any statutory provision, rule or policy conferring a right upon the family of a dismissed deceased employee to claim family pension. Pensionary benefits are governed by the applicable statutory rules and cannot be extended dehors the same. Thus, in absence of any enforceable legal right, the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted. 9. Similar issue has been dealt with by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-3993 of 2011 – Malook Singh (since deceased) through his LRs v. State of Punjab and others decided on 21.02.2025, wherein it has been 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 RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.16 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -6- CWP-28597 of 2022 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 RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.16 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -7- CWP-28597 of 2022 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 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. RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.16 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -8- CWP-28597 of 2022 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 - (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. RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.16 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -9- CWP-28597 of 2022 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 RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.16 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -10- CWP-28597 of 2022 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. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim advanced by the petitioners is bereft of any statutory foundation. The petitioners have failed to establish any enforceable legal right entitling them to the relief of family pension. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. (NAMIT KUMAR) 09.07.2026 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.16 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment