HP High Court: Pensioners Eligible for Reemployment Under Punjab Police Rules Even After Voluntary Retirement; State Told to Reconsider ASI’s Plea
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma directed the State to reconsider the plea of a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector seeking reemployment, ruling that voluntary retirees receiving pension fall within the ambit of Rule 12.25 of the Punjab Police Rules. The Court rejected the State’s argument that only those discharged with compensation or invalid gratuity qualify, clarifying that the rule contemplates three independent grounds—compensation, invalid gratuity, or pension—and eligibility arises if any one is satisfied. Setting aside the authorities’ contrary view, the Court ordered fresh consideration of the officer’s 2014 application.
The petitioner, Prem Lal, was initially appointed as a constable on 22 December 1986 in the police department of Himachal Pradesh. He was promoted to Head Constable and later, in 2010, to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI). On 23 April 2012, after rendering more than 26 years of service, he sought voluntary retirement under the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976, citing adverse family circumstances. The competent authority accepted his request, and he began receiving pension benefits in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules.
On 6 January 2014, the petitioner applied for re-employment under Rule 12.25 of the Punjab Police Rules, which permits re-enrolment of police pensioners under certain conditions. However, the department rejected his request on 5 August 2014. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal through Original Application No. 4049 of 2015. Following the abolition of the Tribunal, the case was transferred to the High Court and registered as CWPOA No. 5993 of 2019. On 6 July 2023, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the earlier rejection, and directed the State to reconsider his application in light of Rule 12.25. The Court also clarified that the petitioner’s age at the time of applying in 2014 would be the relevant factor, not his age at the time of fresh consideration.
Pursuant to these directions, the State again rejected the claim on 10 August 2023, reasoning that Rule 12.25 applied only to those discharged with compensation or invalid gratuity or pension, not to those who took voluntary retirement. The petitioner, challenging this interpretation, filed the present writ petition (CWP No. 8137 of 2023), contending that his receipt of pension after voluntary retirement qualified him for re-employment.
The petitioner argued that Rule 12.25 explicitly provides for re-employment of a police officer discharged with compensation, invalid gratuity, or pension, and that the word “or” in the Rule created distinct categories, any one of which would suffice. Since he was in receipt of pension, his case fell squarely within the rule. The respondents, represented by the State, countered that voluntary retirement was not covered under the Rule and that the rejection order was legally valid.
The Court examined Rule 12.25 of the Punjab Police Rules, which states: “a police officer who has been discharged with a compensation or invalid gratuity or pension may be re-employed in the police service up to the age of 55 subject to the following conditions…” The Rule further stipulates conditions regarding refund of gratuity or cessation of pension, medical fitness certification by the Civil Surgeon, and production of a discharge certificate.
Justice Sharma observed: “Very heading of the afore rule itself suggests that same deals with re-enrolment of police pensioners, meaning thereby, a person, who after his retirement is in receipt of pension, can seek re-employment, but subject to the conditions as detailed in aforesaid Rule 12.25.” The Court rejected the respondents’ narrow interpretation, stating: “In the aforesaid rule, word ‘or’ has been used between words ‘compensation’, ‘invalid’ and ‘pension’, meaning thereby, person having any one of the aforesaid three situations can seek reemployment, but definitely there is nothing to suggest in the afore rule that person seeking reemployment… should satisfy all the three conditions.”
The Court further recorded: “If petitioner is in receipt of pension on account of his having rendered service in police force, he is very much entitled to seek re-employment in terms of Rule 12.25.” It clarified that pensioners may fall into three categories—those discharged with compensation, those discharged with invalid gratuity, and those who retired with entitlement to pension—and that all such categories are independent grounds for re-employment under the Rule.
It recorded: “Since at the time of making application, petitioner was not of 55 years and his prayer has been found to be strictly in terms of Rule 12.25, plea of age sought to be raised deserves outright rejection.”
Allowing the petition, the Court issued clear directions: “present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 10.8.2023, (Annexure P-13) is quashed and set-aside with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the application of the petitioner submitted in the year 2014 for reemployment in terms of Rule 12.25 as well as observations made herein above, expeditiously, preferably, within two weeks, but while doing so, issue with regard to age will not come in the way of the petitioner in light of earlier judgment dated 6.7.2023 rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General
Case Title: Prem Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:30889
Case Number: CWP No. 8137 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sandeep Sharma
