IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.11.2025 Subhash Chander …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Dr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 10.02.2016 whereby his application for reinduction after voluntary retirement was rejected by Commissioner of Police, Faridabad and order dated 29.05.2017 whereby Director General of Police, Haryana dismissed his appeal.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 08.12.1988. His son died on 01.08.2013. He submitted application dated 21.10.2013 seeking voluntary retirement. The said application was allowed on 31.01.2014. He submitted application dated 31.01.2016 seeking his reinduction in view of Rules 12.24 and 12.25 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short ‘PPR’). Commissioner of Police, Faridabad rejected his application vide order dated 10.02.2016. The petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated

29.05.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s application seeking re-enrollment was rejected in terms of Rule 5.32-B and 3.26-D of Volume II of Punjab Civil Services Rules (as applicable to State of Haryana). Those Rules are inapplicable because petitioner was governed by PPR. As per Rules 12.24 and 12.25 of PPR, the petitioner could be re- enrolled. The respondent did not consider PPR and passed impugned non-

speaking orders.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner submitted application seeking voluntary retirement which was accepted on 24.10.2013. The petitioner was allowed to retire w.e.f. 31.01.2014. He submitted application seeking re-enrollment on 31.01.2016 which was rightly rejected in terms of Rule 5.32-B of Service Rules.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner joined service in December’ 1988 and submitted his application seeking voluntary retirement on 21.10.2013. On the date of filing application, he had already completed qualifying service i.e. 20 years. Rule 9.18(1) of PPR provides for pension in case a police officer is permitted to retire on his application.

Relevant extracts of Rule 9.18 read as: -

“9.18. Retiring pension - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, a retiring pension is granted to an officer-

(a) who is permitted to retire from service after completing qualifying service for twenty-five years or such lesser period as may, for any class of officers, be prescribed; or (b) who is compulsorily retired under sub-rule (2)

after completing twenty five years' qualifying service;

(c) who is retired by the appointing authority on or after he attains the age of 55 years, by giving him not less than three months' notice; or (d) who retires on or after attaining the age of 55 years by giving not less than three months' notice of his intention to retire to the appointing authority:

Provided that where the notice is given before the age of fifty-five years so attained, it shall be given effect to from a date not earlier than the date on which the age of fifty-five years is attained.

Note.- Appointing authority retains an absolute right to retire any Government servant on or after he has attained the age of 55 years without assigning any reason. A corresponding right is also available to such a Government servant to retire on or after he has attained the age of 55 years.”

7. Learned counsel for the parties could not point out any Rule of PPR which permits for voluntary retirement. Rule 14.11 of PPR provides for resignation. Both sides have further submitted that Rule 5.32-B of Ser