The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired Indian Army officer seeking pension, gratuity, and leave encashment from the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC), holding that no legal or statutory right to pension had been established, considering the appointment was in temporary capacity.<\/p>\n
After examining the factual record and the governing statutory framework, the High Court noted that the petitioner\u2019s engagement with the Commission was not governed by any pensionable service rules. The Court found that neither the service conditions nor the applicable regulations created an employer\u2013employee relationship conferring a vested right to pension.<\/p>\n
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar<\/b> observed, \u201cSince 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\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026Nowhere does it provide that ex-servicemen must necessarily be provided pension on civil re-employment. Moreover, the petitioner\u2019s 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 reemployed was never pensionary in nature\u2026\u201d, the bench further noted in the judgment.<\/p>\n
Petitioner-in-person<\/b> appeared and Vikas Arora<\/b>, DAG <\/b>appeared for the respondent. <\/p>\n
In the pertinent matter, the petitioner, an ex-Army officer, was appointed to a post in the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC) on a temporary and contractual basis after his retirement from military service. <\/p>\n
As per the facts, the appointment order clearly stipulated that the engagement was purely temporary, carrying no right to regularisation, and which did not confer any entitlement to pensionary or retiral benefits under the State service rules.<\/p>\n
Subsequently, after the completion of his tenure, the petitioner approached the High Court claiming pension from PSERC, contending that his service with the Commission ought to be counted as qualifying service. <\/p>\n
However, the State and the Commission opposed the claim, pointing out that the petitioner had never held a substantive civil post under the State, nor was his appointment governed by pension rules applicable to regular government employees.<\/p>\n
For the background, the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC) is a statutory body constituted under Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Appointments made by the Commission are governed by the framework of this Act and the regulations framed thereunder, not by the general State civil service rules unless expressly adopted.<\/p>\n
The dispute thus centered on whether a temporary appointment in a statutory regulatory commission, without absorption or regularisation, could give rise to a legal right to pension.<\/p>\n
The Court thus while reiterating that pension is not an automatic or equitable entitlement but flows strictly from statutory rules or contractual terms, held that the claim could not be sustained merely on the basis of length of service or past military background. The Court noted that in the absence of any provision entitling the petitioner to pensionary benefits from the Commission as per the rules, he was not entitled.<\/p>\n
Holding that the impugned order suffered from no legal infirmity and that no writ of mandamus could be issued without an enforceable legal right, the High Court dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n
Cause Title: Lt. Col. Ashok Bembey v. Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission and another [Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:014611]<\/b><\/p>\n
Appearances: <\/b><\/p>\n
Petitioner: Petitioner-in-person.<\/b><\/p>\n
Respondent: Vikas Arora, DAG, Gargi Kumar, Pritish Goel, Advocates.<\/p>\n