22.12.2025 2017 CWP-12826-2017 RAJESH KU H KUMAR AND OTHERS v. NERS
Case Details
1 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 115+210(34 c 0(34 cases)+234+256 1. .2025 Date of Decision:22.12.2025 2017 CWP-12826-2017 RAJESH KU H KUMAR AND OTHERS V/S NERS PETITIONERS STATE OF OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2. BIMLA DEV DEVI STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 3. ASHOK KUM K KUMAR STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 4. GURMEET K EET KAUR STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ENTS RESPONDENTS 2025 CWP-10031-2025 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-10636-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-10685-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters 5. RANGDEV S DEV SINGH STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 6. PAWAN KU N KUMAR STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 7. RAJ PAL STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 8. HARJINDER NDER SINGH V/S STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP-1923-2025 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-10690-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-10722-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-10736-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters 9. ATH BAIJ NATH STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 10. VIJAY KUM KUMAR STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 11. ROMINDER NDER BIR SINGH STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 12. TEHAIL SIN IL SINGH STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 2024 CWP-10891-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-10954-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-11030-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-13144-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters 13. CHARAN SI AN SINGH AND ANR STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 14. BIMLA RAN RANI STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 15. MAHABIR P BIR PARSHAD AND OTHERS STATE OF OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 16. PARAMJIT S MJIT SINGH @ PARMJIT SINGH A GH AND ORS STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND ORS V/S 17. HARI HAR Y HAR YADAV AND OTHERS STATE OF OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1403-2021 PETITIONER NERS RESPONDENTS NTS 2022 CWP-17470-2022 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-17608-2024 PETITIONER NERS RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-18513-2024 PETITIONER NERS RESPONDENTS NTS 2023 CWP-21530-2023 PETITIONER NERS RESPONDENTS NTS 5 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters 18. NIDHAN SIN N SINGH STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 19. SUKHDEV S DEV SINGH AND ANR. STATE OF OF PUNJAB AND ORS. V/S 20. OM PARKA RKASH STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 21. GURMEET R EET RAM STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024 CWP-22653-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2017 CWP-23079-2017 NERS PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS NTS 2023 CWP-23762-2023 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2022 CWP-24274-2022 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 6 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters 22. SANJIV KUM V KUMAR STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 23. BALJINDER NDER SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 24. MEERA SHA A SHARMA STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND ORS 25. RANJIT SIN T SINGH AND OTHERS V/S V/S 2023 CWP-24324-2023 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2022 CWP-25194-2022 PETITIONER NERS RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-28132-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2025 CWP-31988-2025 PETITIONER NERS STATE OF OF PUNJAB THROUGH ITS SECR SECRETARY AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS NTS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters 26. 2025 CWP-33549-2025 KEWAL KR L KRISHAN AND OTHERS STATE OF OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 27. OM PARKA RKASH STATE OF OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 28. MADAN SIN N SINGH STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 29. KULDEEP S EEP SINGH STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S PETITIONER NERS RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-34014-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 2024 CWP-34089-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS CWP-5163-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters 30. SUKHWIND WINDER SINGH CWP-6937-2021 NER PETITIONER V/S PUNJAB ST B STATE POWER CORPORATION TION LTD. AND OTHERS 31. RAJ KUMAR UMAR AND OTHERS STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 32. PREM SAGA SAGAR AND ANOTHER STATE OF OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S 33. AVTAR SIN R SINGH V/S STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 34. IQBAL STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RESPONDENTS NTS CWP-8597-2023 PETITIONER NERS ENTS RESPONDENTS CWP-8700-2023 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS CWP-9046-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS CWP-9200-2024 NER PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NTS 9 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters 35. REENA STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS VS 36. ANJU BALA BALA AND OTHERS 2021 CWP-20531-2021 NER PETITIONER ENTS RESPONDENTS CWP-1229-2024 NER PETITIONER STATE OF P OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS NTS RESPONDENTS VS CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
urt in sion Bench judgment of this Court in PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters Harbans Lal s Lal vs. State of Punjab, 2010 SCC ed by CC Online P&H 8181, affirmed by the Supreme preme Court, wherein it was held th dered eld that daily wage service rendered before regul regularization must be counted to e for ted towards qualifying service for pension, and n, and such employees are deeme ior to deemed to be in service prior to 01.01.2004. H 004. He also places reliance on State an, State of Haryana vs. Jai Bhagwan, 2024 NCPHH PHHC 95763, where part-time serv zation e service followed by regularization was directed rected to be counted for pension. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for t at the el for the respondents submits that the petitioners w ers were regularized after 01.01.2004 e new .2004 and are governed by the new pension sche n scheme. Further they were part-tim nly 4 time employees working only 4 hours a da a day and cannot be equated agers. ated with full-time daily wagers. Simultaneous aneously the petition suffers from d unsel rom delay and laches. The counsel further subm submits that when the petitioners a t they ners accepted the employment they were well aw ell aware of the terms of regularizati ionary larization which excluded pensionary benefits. 5. Having heard the learned couns after counsel for both the parties and after perusing the g the records it transpires that the pet ice of he petitioners have been in service of the responde pondent-Committee as Safai Sewaks were waks since the year 1994 who were later regulari gularised in the year 2008. Further th ed the rther the respondents have denied the claim made b made by the petitioners through repre 7 and representation dated 17.02.2017 and have held Ha Harbans Lal (supra) to be inappli facts, napplicable, distinguishing it on facts, without provi t providing any reasoning for this conc is conclusion. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters 6. Further, the service of the petit y the e petitioners is also governed by the Rules of 1994 f 1994. The relevant provisions of the of the same are reproduced below: “1. Short title and commenceme (1)These rules may be ca Corporation Employees Pension Rules, 1994. cement and application. – the Punjab Municipal ipal called und nsion and General Provident Fund (2) They shall be deemed to ha effect from the first day of April who are members of Corporation, and in the case of a non-provincialised Service of into force from such date, as th determine, by a resolution passe o have come into force on and with with pril, 1990 in the case of employees yees f a he provincialised Service of a the e of employees who are members of rs of e of a Corporation, they shall come ome ay, as the concerned Corporation may, assed in this behalf. (3) They shall apply to the emplo (i) who are appointed on 1990 on whole time regula (ii) who were working imm April, 1990 on whole time rules : mployees of the Corporations, - pril, d on or after the first day of April, egular basis; and immediately, before the first day of y of hese time regular basis and opt for these that Provided the em immediately before the first day during the period between the f date of publication of these rule have the option to opt for thes months from the date of publicat condition that they shall have contribution their C including interest thereon rec simple interest on the whole am per annum from the date o repayment. king employees who were working day of April, 1990 and who retired tired the the first day of April, 1990 and the hall rules in the Official Gazette, shall these rules within a period of four four the lication of these rules, subject to the have to refund the Corporation’s on’s ir Contributory Provident Fund und with received by them together with e amount at the rate of ten per cent cent of e of withdrawal to the date of towards (4) They shall not apply to the em he employees, who – les; (a) opt out of these rules; PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters (b) are members of All Service; (c) are paid out of conting (d) are work-charged emp (e) are employed after sup (f) are employed on co contract provides otherwis (g) are specifically exclu operation of these rules. ivil All India Service or Punjab Civil ntingencies; employees; r superannuation; the contract basis, except when the erwise; and the xcluded wholly or partly from the 2. Definitions.- (k) "qualifying service" means Corporation for which an Corporation fund and shall incl the Government of Punjab, Committee or any other Public S before joining the Service; (l) "Service" means the service Corporation;” er a ans the service rendered under a the an employee is paid from the include any service rendered under nder , a jab, any Improvement Trust, a tely lic Sector Undertaking immediately of a ice rendered under the control of a 7. Admittedly, the salary of the p from the petitioners was being paid from the municipa nicipal funds since their engagement 1994. ement on contract in the year 1994. Thus, in term in terms of Rule 2(k) of the Rules count ules of 1994, the same must count towards qual s qualifying service as no distinction regard inction has been made in this regard between regu gular and work-charged employe loyee ployees. Tritely, where an employee has been con en continuously working, on daily-wa ificant wage or contract, for a significant duration of n of time, such service cannot puting nnot be ignored while computing pensionary b nary benefits. Such service in no way ement o way can be treated as engagement only for con or contingencies. The petitioners we of the ers were regularised in view of the perennial nat ial nature of their services that they ha e year hey had been rendering since the year 1994. As su As such, they deserve the benefits of tation fits of the same towards computation of pensionar sionary benefits as well. Further, whil (ii) of r, while striking down sub-rule (ii) of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters Rule 3.17 of .17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules urt in s Rules, a Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand hand vs. State of Punjab and others s held hers AIR 1988 Punjab 265 has held that when a c en a certain duration of service is cou n, the counted towards regularisation, the same must a ust also be counted towards compu nefits. computation of pensionary benefits. Speaking thro ng through Justice G.R. Majithia, the f a, the following was held: “19. In (ii) of period into ac of a w public it. This June 1 (B.& publish otherw No. 14 where put in service of a wo be har availab Equal all pe becaus equalit Govern service employ has no service Govern started subseq and, th charge 9. In the light of the above, let us e ) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules riod of service in a work-charged e to account in calculating the qualify a work-charged employee have b blic servant. The service is under t This is what was precisely stated ne 1, 1972, between the Workmen a .& R.), Establishment Branch, blished in the Government Gazett herwise, the matter was settled by . 14095-BRI (3)-72/5383 dated 6th ere it was stated that all those wor t in ten years of service or more a rvice would be deemed to have been a work charged employee have bee hardly any logic to deprive him of ailable to other public servants u ual protection of laws must mean t l persons similarly situated. Art cause a provision which is arbitr uality. Even the temporary or offic overnment had to be reckoned fo rvice. It looks to be illogical that th ployee in a work charged establish s not been taken into consideration rvice. The classification which is vernment servants who are eligib rted as work-charged employees bsequently, and the others is not ba d, therefore, is not sustainable at law arged employee have been regulari 3.17 us examine the validity of rule 3.17 ules Vol. II. This rule says that the t the aken ed establishment shall not be taken ices ualifying service. After the services ve been regularised he becomes a es a d by der the Government and is paid by ated ated in the Industrial Award dated en and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. .D. was h, Punjab, Patiala, which was azette dated July 14, 1972. Even ven by the Punjab Government Memo emo P7) 6th February, 1973 (Annexure P7) work-charged employees who had had heir ore as on 15th August, 1972, their vice been regularised. Once the service been regularised, there appears to rs to are m of the Pensionary benefits as are ts under rule 3.17 of the Rules. ules. ean the protection of equal laws for s for ness Article 14 strike at arbitrariness rbitrary involves the negation of n of tate officiating service under the State ying d for determining the qualifying at the period of service spent by an y an tion blishment before his regularisation tion for determining his qualifying ying h is sought to be made among ong who ligible for lesion and those who ees and their services regularised ised ot based on any intelligible criteria teria rk - t law. After the services of a work like ularised, he is a public servant like PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters any oth and in reason to be s y other servant. To deprive him of d inequitable but is hit by the vice asons the provisions of sub rule (ii) be struck down being violative of A just of the pension is not only unjust hese vice of arbitrariness, and for these e (ii) of rule 3.17 of the Rules have have .” of Article 14 of the Constitution.” (emphasis added) 8. Reliance in this regard can als gment an also be placed on the judgment rendered by t ed by this Court in Zile Singh vs. Sta 015 State of Haryana in CWP-626-2015 decided on 1 on 17.03.2015 wherein duration of eeper on of services rendered by a sweeper on part time t time, before regularisation, was o wards was ordered to be counted towards pensionary b nary benefits. The same was also uphe of this o upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA LPA-426-2016 titled as State of Har ingh f Haryana and others vs. Zile Singh decided on 18 d on 18.03.2016.The relevant part is re rt is reproduced below: “This Judge the ben toward as Kes his appeal is directed against the dge dated 17.3.2015 holding the res e benefit of previous service rendere wards qualifying service as pension Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab an Learned counsel for the appel dgment refers to Rule 3.17 A to ployee was engaged on part time titled to have this service counted fo is extracted herebelow:- the judgment of the learned Single ngle d to e respondent – employee entitled to dered by him on work charge basis asis ion in terms of the Full Bench titled itled 65. ab and others AIR 1988, P&H 265 ppellant while impugning the said said ent- to contend that the respondent t be time basis and would thus not be 3.17 ed for qualifying service. Rule 3.17 judgme employ entitled A is ex 3.17-A (1) Subject to the prov rules and except in the cases rendered on establishment, int count as qualifying service:- (i) Service rendered in work cha (ii) Service paid from contingen January, 1973 half of the servic be allowed to count towards pe in regular employment subject to (a) Service paid from con a job involving whole-ti time or for a portion of the ther provisions of rule 4.23 and other ases mentioned below, all service vice hall , interrupted or continuous, shall charged establishment. e 1st gencies: Provided that after the 1st ervice paid from contingencies will will tion s pension at the time of absorption ect to the following conditions:- contingencies should have been in n in part time employment (and not part f the day) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters (b) Service paid from con a type of work or job for been sanctioned e.g malis, (c) the service should h payment is made either computed and paid on a m not analogous to the reg some relation in the matte similar jobs being per establishment. (d) the service paid from continuos and followed employment without a bre contingencies should have been in n in have for which regular post could have alis, chowkidars, khalasis etc. the ld have been one for which the ither on monthly or daily rates ates n a monthly basis and which though ugh bear regular scale of pay should bear atter of pay to those being paid for for ular in regular performed by staff om contingencies should have been been ular owed by absorption in regular break.” Apparently rendered r establishment is included but ex portion of the day as is suggeste arge charge or a t excluded if it is part time or for a ested by Rule 3.17 A(ii)(a). in work service We find that the employee was e the year 1996 and his services w terms of the regularization po nothing on record to suggest being paid from contingencies a or raised before the writ Court. such a plea is raised before thi not permit. There is also nothin remotely suggest that the servic only for contingencies and if th to be seen it clearly defies such person can be engaged from 19 visualized to be a contingenc permanent. The ratio of the Ful (supra) has been correctly appli and thus we do not find any re appeal, particularly, when it unexplained delay of 318 days. dismissed.” as engaged on work charge basis in is in 3 in es were regularized on 24.5.2013 in e is n policy applied to him. There is est that employee's services were ere ded ies as this issue was never pleaded ourt. It is only for the first time that that e this Court in LPA which we shall hall even othing on record which would even ervice of the employee was engaged aged nt is if the long term of employment is If a uch a stand of the respondents. If a m 1996 till 2013 it could hardly be y be was gency as the need evidently was Full Bench in Kesar Chand's case case applied by the learned Single Judge dge sent y reason to interfere in the present n it is also barred by a large arge reby ays. Hence, instant appeal is hereby PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters 9. Further, the provisions of the R hat of the Rules of 1994 are akin to that of the Punjab C njab Civil Services Rules, particular these ticularly Rule 3.17A. Both of these provisions ca ons call for casual or daily rated s wards ated service to be counted towards qualifying s ing service for the purpose of pe s, the of pensionary benefits. Thus, the contention th tion that the petitioners are not elig ervice t eligible to have their past service counted as th d as they have been regularised recen ted. A d recently deserves to be rejected. A Division Ben n Bench of this Court in Harbans La y held s Lal (supra) has emphatically held that if an em employee was appointed prior t e new rior to the introduction of the new scheme but but was regularised subsequent to till be ent to the same, he would still be governed by ed by the old scheme. The following w wing was opined: “12. …We come to the conclu date of appointment after regu which employee takes charge service of a daily wager is to be then his date of appointment w date of appointment i.e. 1988 a pension scheme by applying t 28.3.2005 which is evidently a restructured defined Contributi force w.e.f. 1.1.2004. itial nclusion that the petitioners' initial regularisation will be the date on e on ntire arge of the post. Once the entire to be counted as qualifying service vice ent will relegate back to his initial itial rom 988 and he cannot be ousted from ing the date of regularisation i.e. i.e. tly after the new scheme or new new into ibution Pension Scheme came into xxx xxx 15. This view has been followe Court in case of Hans Raj v. 2005(3) RSJ 262. In this case th Punjab Municipal Employees P Fund Rules, 1994. Vide instructi Punjab had provided that sinc made applicable in lieu of CPF, qualifying for pension has to b which the employee was con instructions were held contrary Division Bench. The Division instructions cannot substitute xxx lowed by a Division Bench of this this j v. State of Punjab and others, ers, the se the Division Bench examined the es Pension and General Provident dent te of ructions dated 8.1.1999, the State of been since the Pension Rules has been PF, the period to be considered as d as for to be restricted to the period for contributing to his CPF. These hese trary to the Pension Rules by the the said ision Bench held that the said tive tute or supplant the substantive PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 20 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters provisions of the Pension Ru entitled to count his entire se qualifying service for the purp that qualifying service would contribution to the CPF, has Bench. held Rules. The petitioner was held as e service from 1962 to 1998 as purpose of pension. The condition ition e of ould commence from the date of sion has been rejected by the Division 16. From the above discussion, that the entire daily wage servi till the date of his regularisation service for the purpose of pensi govt. service prior to 1.1.2004. Contribution Pension Scheme introduced for the new entran Service w.e.f. 01.01.2004, wi petitioner. The amendment mad the Punjab Civil Services Rules issuing clarification/instructions 3). The petitioner will continu Scheme and is held entitled to applicable to the employees r Services prior to 1.1.2004.” ion, we have come to the conclusion sion 988 service of the petitioner from 1988 ying ation is to be counted as qualifying ension. He will be deemed to be in e in ined 04. The new Re-structured Defined been heme (Annexure P-1) has been trants in the Punjab Government ent the , will not be applicable to the made vide Annexure P-2 amending ding ules, cannot be further amended by d by e P- tions dated 30.5.2008 (Annexure P tinue to be governed by the GPF PF d to receive pensionary benefits as as ovt. es recruited in the Punjab Govt. dded) (emphasis added) 10. Pertinently, a two Judge Bench Court Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uday Prat Pratap Thakur vs. State of Bihar 2 aking ar 2023 INSC 461, while speaking through Justi h Justice M.R Shah, made the followin llowing observations in this regard: “6.3 Now, insofar as the relian this Court in the case of Prem counsel appearing on behalf of reliance placed upon the said d In the said case, this Court was 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Be the entire service rendered as counted for qualifying service f has observed and held that af charged for number of years in / department, denying them th eliance placed upon the decision of n of rned rem Singh (supra) by the learned f of the appellants is concerned, the the id decision is absolutely misplaced. ced. Rule was considering the validity of Rule t Benefit Rules, 1961, under which hich be as work charged was not to be ourt ice for pension. To that, this Court after rendering service as work ork ent rs in the Government establishment that m the pension on the ground that PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters they have not completed the q would be unjust, arbitrary and has observed and held that th charged shall be considered / c This Court has not observed a rendered as work charged shall quantum of pension / pension. T case of Prem Singh (supra), th the counting of service rendered service for pension.” sion the qualifying service for pension ourt and illegal. Therefore, this Court at their services rendered as work ork vice. d / counted for qualifying service ed and held that the entire service vice hall be considered / counted for the the the n. The decision of this Court in the ), therefore, would be restricted to d to ying ered as work charged for qualifying dded) (emphasis added) 11. The petitioners’ regularization a t alter ation after 01.01.2004 does not alter their status a tatus as employees appointed prior t eld in prior to the cut-off date. As held in Harbans Lal s Lal (supra), the date of initial ap or the appointment relates back for the purpose of pe e of pension. 12. In view of the above, the prese ed of. present writ petition is disposed of. The responde spondents are directed to: (a) Count the entire service ren from ice rendered by the petitioners from July 1994 (initial part-time a te of time appointment) till the date of regularization as qualifying serv g service for pension; (b) Treat the petitioners as cover vident s covered under the General Provident Fund Scheme applicable to ior to e to employees recruited prior to 01.01.2004; and (c) Compute and release all con nefits, all consequential pensionary benefits, including arrears, within three m eceipt three months from the date of receipt order. of a certified copy of this order. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 22 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters (d) Needless to say, when the all be en the petitioners retire, they shall be entitled to pensionary benef benefits as calculated by taking taking 01.02.1994 as their date of appoi f appointment.
Arguments
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-12 12826-2017). Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate for th (in CWP-8700-2023 & 18513- -2024). for the petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CWP140 P1403-2021). Mr. R.K. Arora, Sr. Advocate wi Advocate and Mr. Jugam Arora, (in CWP-6937-2021). cate with Mr. Prabhat K. Jalbera, er(s) Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for th 2022. for the petitioner in CWP-24274- Mr. Atul Arya, Advocate for the (in CWP-17470-2022). for the petitioner(s) Mr. Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Ad Mr. Ashish Goklaney, Advocate (in CWP-25194-2022). ey, Advocate and vocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advoca dvocate, Mr. Hargen Sethi, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters Mr. Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advoc (in CWPs-23079-2017 and 8597 Advocates for the petitioner(s) 8597-2023). Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate, fo Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for t (in CWP-21530-2023). ate, for te for the petitioner(s) Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for (in CWP-23762-2023). ate for the petitioner(s) Ms. Narender Kaur, Advocate fo (in CWP-24324-2023). cate for the petitioner(s) Mr. Sonia G. Singh Samber and for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-5163-2024). er and Ms.Seema Kumari, Advocate Mr. Mage Ram Sharma, Advoca for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-176 dvocate, 17608-2024). Mr. Gurvinder Pal Singh, Advoc Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in Advocate for Mr. P.S. Khurana, (in CWP-22653-2024). , B.P.S Thakur and Ms. Tanya Sehgal Mr. Abhishek Singla, Mr. B.P.S Advocates for the petitioner(s) (in CWPs-9046, 10636, 9200,10 28132, 10891, 10954, 11030-202 00,10685, 10690, 10722, 10736, 2024, 31988, 33549-2025). ate and Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate and vocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. Yuraj Dhananjaya, Advocate (in CWP-13144-2024). Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advoca (in CWPs-34014-2024, 34089- dvocate for the petitioner(s) -2024 & 10031-2025). Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advo for the petitioner in CWP-12826 , Advocate 12826-2017. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab unjab-State. Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for (in CWP-22653-2024). ate for respondents No. 2 to 4 Ms. Manjari Joshi, Advocate for the respondent-Bank (in CWP n CWP-24274-2022). PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters Mr. Sanjeev Soni,Mr. Sarthak S Ms. Nishtha Grover and Mr. Tar respondent-Municipal Corporatio 2023, 8700-2023, 10636,9046, 28132, 10891, 9200, 10954,1103 hak Soni, Mr. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, r. Tara Dutt, Advocates for 8597- poration (in CWPs-1403-2021, 8597 ,9046, 10685, 10690, 10722, 10736, 4,11030-2024. Ms. Kulwinder Pal Kaur Gill, Ad Mr. Jastej Advocate for responde (in CWP-24274-2022). ill, Advocate for spondent No.3 vocate Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for respondent No.3 (in CWP-17 Mr. Inderpal Singh, Advocate fo Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate for (in CWP-5163-2024). Mr. Harpreet Singh Multani and Advocates, for respondents No.3 17608-2024). cate for ate for respondent No.3 hawa, and Mr. Karanbir Singh Randhawa s No.3 to 5 (in CWPs-23079-2017). Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for (in CWP-12826-2017). ate for respondent No.4 for respondent No.4 Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for res (in CWP-17470-2022). Mr. Gursimran S. Bawa, Advoca (in CWP-8700-2023). dvocate for respondent No.4 Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate (in CWP-25194-2022). ocate for respondent No.5 Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate (in CWP-25194-2022). ocate for respondent No.5 Ms. Roja Agnihotri, Advocate fo Corporation (in CWP-23762-202 2023). cate for respondent-Municipal Mr. Brijeshwar Vashist, Advoca (in CWP-24324-2023). dvocate for respondent No.5 Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate for Dera Baba Nanak & M.C.Malerk 18513-2024), respectively. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for re (in CWP-6937-2021). uncil te for respondent-Municipal Council Malerkotla (in CWPs- 13144 and e for respondent-PSPCL Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for respondent-M.C. in CWP-31 31988-2025. cate for Ms. Manjari Joshik, Mr. Jaswinder Kaur, Advocate fo ank. Advocate for respondent-Bank. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 CWP P-12826-2017 and others connecte ected matters HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) CM-5383-CW 4 CWP-2025 in CWP-34014-2024 The present application has be 51 of has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for plac or placing on record affidavit of Sh. rector, of Sh. Jagdeep Saigal, Joint director, Department o ment of Local Government, Punjab No.1 njab on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 along w long with Annexures R-1 to R-4. In view of the grounds mentione ame is ntioned in the application, the same is allowed, as p d, as prayed for, subject to all just exc ust exceptions. Annexures R-1 to R- -4 are ordered to ered to be taken on record. Registry is directed to place the place. ace the same at an appropriate place. Main 1. This order of mine shall dispos d writ dispose of the above-mentioned writ petitions as th s as they arise from a similar factual m ake of ctual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the fa , the facts are taken from CWP-12826 12826-2017. 2. The present civil writ petition rticles etition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of th 7 of the Constitution of India, to cou dered to count their entire service rendered on part-time time basis followed by regular ser ce for ar service for qualifying service for pension; and n; and Grant them pensionary benef loyees benefits as applicable to employees recruited pri ed prior to 01.01.2004 under the loyees the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and G n and General Provident Fund Rules, 1 ules, 1994. 3. Learned counsel for the petition at the etitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners’ i ers’ initial appointment in July 1994 their y 1994 prior to 01.01.2004 and their subsequent re uent regularization in 2008 does not m ” after s not make them “new entrants” after the cut-off da off date. He relies on the Division B
Decision
No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applica stand pplications, if any, shall also stand 13. 14. ed of. disposed of. 15. Photocopy of this order be place nected e placed on the files of the connected cases. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE December 22 P.C 22, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document