Pensioners Eligible For Reemployment Under Punjab Police Rules Even After Seeking Voluntary Retirement: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the state to reconsider the application of a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector, holding that pensioners after voluntary retirement are eligible for reemployment under Rule 12.25 of the Punjab Police Rules.

Rejecting the contention of the State, Justice Sandeep Sharma clarified that “…a person concerned can seek re-enrolment in three situations; i) discharge with compensation; ii) discharge with invalid gratuity; or iii) he should be in receipt of pension. In the aforesaid rule, word 'or' has been used… meaning thereby, person having any one of the aforesaid three situations can seek reemployment…”

In 1986, the petitioner was appointed as constable in the respondent department and was subsequently promoted to the post of Head Constable. In 2010 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. However after two years he sought voluntary requirement due to adverse family circumstances.

His request was accepted and since then he had been receiving regular pension under the Central Civil Services Pension Rules.

In 2014, the petitioner submitted an application for re-employment under Rule 12.25 of the Punjab Police Rules, which allows re-enrolment of police pensioners up to the age of 55.

However his application was rejected on the ground that he had taken voluntary retirement and cannot be reemployed.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.

The Court clarified that according to rule 12.25 of the Punjab Police Rules a person concerned can seek re-enrolment in three situations ; i) discharge with compensation; ii. discharge with invalid gratuity; or iii) he should be in receipt of pension.

It further clarified that the word or has been used in the rule which means that a person fulfilling any one of the above three situations can seek reemployment and does not have to fulfill all three conditions.

Thus the Court held that, since the petitioner was receiving pension after voluntary retirement, he came within the scope of the rule.

Thereafter, the Court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's case and take a decision within two weeks.

Case Name: Prem Lal V/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 8137 of 2023

Date of Decision: 10.09.2025

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.

Click Here To Read/Download Order