Court orders re-fixation of pension for former Punjab Police officer after 20-year legal battle

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the re-fixation of pension for BS Danewalia, a former senior officer of the Punjab Police, after more than two decades of legal battle. Acting on his appeal against a single bench order, a division bench directed the Punjab Government to revise his pension based on the pay scale of the upgraded DGP post.

The direction by the bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma in the matter dating back to the late 1970s is significant as the controversy now stands settled with the court ordering retroactive pension adjustments starting from 1986, along with interest. He was represented by senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram with counsel Sandeep Kumar.

The bench, during the course of hearing, was told that Danewalia was appointed IGP in Punjab. At that time, he was the head of the state police force, with a pay scale of Rs 2,500 to 2,750, and a special pay of Rs 250 per month. On February 20, 1980, the Akali government in Punjab was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to be transferred from the post of IGP to a non-cadre position. Danewalia took premature retirement on June 5, 1980, just months before a major shift in the police hierarchy in Punjab.

In 1982, after Danewalia’s retirement, the Punjab Government introduced the post of DGP, which was an upgrade from the position of IGP. The new post was effective from July 16, 1982, and Birbal Nath, an officer junior to Danewalia, was appointed to the position. Danewalia contended that had he not retired prematurely, he would have been the first officer to assume the position of DGP upon his normal retirement age of 58 in 1983. This would have entitled him to the higher pay scale and benefits attached to the upgraded position.

The bench was also told that the pay scale for the DGP was revised to Rs 7,600 to 8000 from January 1, 1986, while the pay for the position of IGP was set at Rs 5,900 to 6,700.

Danewalia’s pension was fixed in 1988 based on the pay scale of the IGP post, ignoring his entitlement to the pay scale of the DGP post. Danewalia repeatedly submitted representations requesting the revision of his pension, arguing that he was unfairly denied the benefits of the upgraded post, but these representations were rejected.

The case entered the legal domain in 1999 with Danewalia filing a writ petition before the high court challenging the pension fixation. After years of legal proceedings, the case reached its first significant judgment in 2017, where the single judge bench dismissed his plea.

The case was revisited in the form of a Letters Patent Appeal. The high court ruled Danewalia’s favour, holding that the denial of the DGP pay scale for his pension was unjust. The court emphasised that his early retirement should not negate his entitlement to the benefits of a post he would have naturally ascended to had he remained in service. The court noted that a junior officer had been appointed to the DGP position after Danewalia’s retirement, further solidifying his claim. Before parting, the bench asserted: “The petition stands allowed… the respondents are directed to re-fix the pensionary benefits vis-à-vis the present appellant with effect from January 1, 1986, along with interest at 6 per cent per annum.”