The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant pension and other retiral benefits to a former Army officer who was re-employed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC) for more than a decade. The court made it clear that length of service alone is not enough to claim pension if the post itself was never pensionable.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar delivered the judgment while dismissing a petition filed by Lt. Col. Ashok Bembey, who had challenged the rejection of his pension claim by the Commission.
Background of the Case
The petitioner retired from the Indian Army in 1997 and was later appointed as Deputy Director (Media and Housekeeping) in PSERC in March 2002. His appointment was renewed from time to time and continued till March 2014. After that, he worked on a contract basis until December 2015.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds 5/16 Share in 79-Property Family Partition Dispute, Dismisses Dorairaj’s Appeals
He told the court that he had served the Commission for about 12 years on a regular pay scale and therefore deserved pension, full gratuity, and leave encashment. He relied on Punjab Civil Services Rules and government instructions to argue that his re-employment should be treated like a regular civil post.
Earlier, in 2016, the Commission had rejected his claim through a detailed order. That rejection became the subject of the present writ petition.
Appearing in person, the former officer said his re-employment was against a sanctioned post and not a casual arrangement. He stressed that he had completed more than ten years of service, which is usually the minimum requirement for pension under service rules.
He also pointed out that he was given partial gratuity and some leave encashment, which, according to him, showed that the Commission treated his service as qualifying.
“I served continuously for 12 years. The rules allow pension after ten years,” he argued before the court.
The Commission, however, took a firm stand that it never had permanent posts. Its lawyers told the court that from the very beginning, all appointments were made only through deputation, re-employment, or on contract.
They highlighted that the petitioner’s appointment letter clearly said the job was temporary and could be terminated at any time. They also pointed out that the service rules governing the Commission do not provide for any pension scheme at all.
The Commission added that even the government had clarified in 2017 that the petitioner was not eligible for pension or leave encashment under the applicable instructions.
Court’s Observations
Justice Brar noted that “pension is not an automatic entitlement but depends on the rules governing the post.” The court explained that the key issue is not just how long someone worked, but the nature of the appointment.
The judge observed that the petitioner was appointed “purely on a temporary basis” and never held a permanent or substantive post. The court also said that there was no proof that Punjab Civil Services Rules were ever adopted by the Commission.
Read also:- MP High Court Upholds DNA Test Order in Divorce Case, Says It’s Necessary to Examine Adultery Allegations
Quoting Supreme Court rulings, the bench underlined that pension can be claimed only when the service rules allow it. “If a post is not pensionable, the court cannot create a pension right by sympathy,” the judgment noted in substance.
Final Decision
After going through the record, the High Court concluded that PSERC never intended to create regular, pensionable posts and that the petitioner always knew his job was temporary or contractual in nature.
Holding that he did not meet the basic conditions for a pensionable service, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the Commission’s decision to deny pension and other retiral benefits.
Case Title:- Lt. Col. Ashok Bembey vs Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Another
Read Number:- CWP-16174-2017 (O&M)
Pronounced Date:- 2 February 2026
