Sukhdev Sing ev Singh State of Punja f Punjab and others SUS v. itioner
Case Details
CWP-18813 813-2022 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 253 CWP WP-18813-2022 Date of , 2025 ate of Decision: November 18, 2025 Sukhdev Sing ev Singh State of Punja f Punjab and others SUS VERSUS itioner ....Petitioner ...Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :
Legal Reasoning
n Bench judgment of this Court in njab rt in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and others, 2 rs, 2012(3) SCT 362. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for ts that sel for the respondent(s) submits that the services o vices of petitioner were regularized a enefit ized after 01.01.2004 and the benefit of old pensio pension scheme is available to those rior to those employees who joined prior to 01.01.2004, w 004, whereas, the petitioner was regu 7. As s regularized only on 01.10.2007. As such, he is no e is not entitled for claim as raised i ever, ised in the present petition. However, learned coun counsel for respondents(s) is not in a e fact ot in a position to controvert the fact that the past e past service rendered by the petition red to etitioner as daily wager is required to be considered sidered in terms of the aforementioned tioned judgments of this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel f ed the nsel for the parties and perused the record of the of the case with their able assistance. ance. 5. It transpires that that the p the petitioner initially d on joined on 01.03.1995 a 995 as daily wager and his services w .2007. ices were regularized on 01.10.2007 The issue inv sue involved in this petition has been by the s been authoritatively decided by the Full Bench o nch of this Court in Kesar Chand’s ca s held ’s case (supra), wherein it was held PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18813 813-2022 3 that the work work-charge service rendered prior to unted prior to regularisation is to be counted as qualifying lifying service for pension and other rative other service benefits. The operative part of the sa - the said judgment, reads as follows:- "Once the services of a work been ork-charged employee have been regularized, there appears to be him o be hardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as blic as are available to other public servants under Rule 3.17 of the laws the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the protection of equ larly equal laws for all persons similarly situated. Article 14 strikes a ar sion a arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the the the negation of equality. Even the temporary or officiating servic ent rvice under the State Government has to be reckoned for determ e. It termining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the an the period of service spent by an employee is a work-charg harged his established before his regularization has not been for een taken into consideration for determining the qualifying serv h is service. The classification which is sought to be made from Govern ible vernment servants who are eligible for pension and those who star oyee started as work-charged employee and their services regularized s rs is zed subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible not ble criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the rged the services of a work charged employee have been regularized any rized, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him o just im of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by th for y the vice of arbitrariness and for these reasons the provisions of f the s of sub rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down be f the n being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18813 813-2022 4 6. Further the similar issue came re the came up for consideration before the Division Ben n Bench of this Court in Harbans La it was s Lal’s case (supra), wherein it was held that th at the entire daily wage/work ch y an rk charge service rendered by an employee pr yee prior to regularization is to be ervice to be counted as qualifying service for the purp purposes of pension. The relevant p gment evant paragraph of the said judgment reads as unde s under:- “This view has been followed by in case of Hans Raj Vs. State RSJ 262. In this case the Divisi Municipal Employees Pension Rules, 1994. Vide instructions Punjab had provided that sinc made applicable in lieu of CPF qualifying for pension has to which the employee was con instructions were held contrar Division Bench. The Division instructions cannot substitute 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. ourt ed by a Division Bench of this Court tate of Punjab and others, 2005(3) 5(3) ivision Bench examined the Punjab njab und sion and General Provident Fund tions dated 8.1.1999, the State of e of been since the Pension Rules has been d as PF, the period to be considered as to be restricted to the period for for hese contributing to his CPF. These trary to the Pension Rules by the the ision Bench held that the said said tive itute or supplant the substantive Rules. The petitioner was held held re service from 1962 to 1998 as as ition purpose of pension. The condition ould commence from the date of e of sion has been rejected by the Division 16. From the above discus conclusion that the entire daily from 1988 till the date of his re qualifying service for the pur deemed to be in govt. service pr structured Defined Contribution 1) has been introduced for th Government Service w.e.f. 01.01 the petitioner. The amendme amending the Punjab Civil Ser the scussion, we have come to the oner daily wage service of the petitioner is regularization is to be counted as d as l be purpose of pension. He will be e prior to 01.01.2004. The new Re Re- e P- ution Pension Scheme (Annexure P njab r the new entrants in the Punjab 1.01.2004, will not be applicable to le to -2 dment made vide Annexure P- ther l Services Rules, cannot be further PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18813 813-2022 5 amended by issuing clarificatio (Annexure P-3). The petitioner the GPF Scheme and is held benefits as applicable to the em Govt. Services prior to 01.01.20 008 cation/instructions dated 30.5.2008 d by ner will continue to be governed by eld entitled to receive pensionary nary njab e employees recruited in the Punjab 1.2004. 17. In view of the above, Accordingly respondents are dir of work charge service as qualif accordingly to clarification issu 3), the new defined Contributo applicable to all those employee to 01.01.2004 but have been pension and arrears be ca expeditiously, preferably within the date of receipt of copy of this wed. ve, the writ petition is allowed. e directed to treat the whole period riod ualified service for pension because ause e P- issued on 30.05.2008 (Annexure P ibutory Pension Scheme would be be rior loyees who have been working prior his een regularized thereafter. Let his to him him calculated and paid from ithin a period of three months from f this order.” 7. The judgment in case of Har was Harbans Lal’s case (supra) was challenged b ged by the State before the Hon’b ling a Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leav l Leave Petition, which was dismisse .2012 smissed vide order dated 30.07.2012 and thereafte reafter, the review petition was filed i s also filed in the said SLP, which was also dismissed vid sed vide order dated 04.11.2015. 8. Accordingly, of in view of the aforesaid itative authoritative pronounceme ncements of the Full Bench of this case f this Court in Kesar Chand’s case (supra), as w , as well as the Division Bench of th case of this Court in Harbans Lal’s case (supra), the , the present petition is allowed. Th ted to The respondents are directed to count the pet he petitioner’s daily wage service fro as ice from 01.03.1995 to 01.10.2007 as qualifying se ing service for the purpose of pensi de his pensionary benefits and decide his claim within within a period of three months from rtified from the date of receipt of certified copy of this j f this judgment. If the petitioner is fou rs, the r is found eligible for any arrears, the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18813 813-2022 6 payment ther nt thereof shall be made within a perio e date a period of three months from the date of determina rmination of such arrears, however, carry ever, the said arrears shall not carry erest. any interest. 9. Pending application(s), if any, sh
Arguments
Mr. P.K. Goklaney and Mr. Ashi or the r. Ashish Goklaney, Advocates for the petitioner. unjab. Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Promila Nain, Sr. Advocate for respondent No.4. vocate with Ms. Kanchan, Advocate HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been fil of the een filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution tution of India praying for issuance of in the ce of a writ, order or directions in the nature of ma mandamus directing the respond to the spondents to release pension to the petitioner und er under old pension scheme along w view long with interest @12% p.a. in view of the judgme judgment passed by this Court and oth ch are nd other remaining services which are still due tow e towards department, as the petition ntitled etitioner is fully eligible and entitled for the same. same. Further it is prayed that the ord the order dated 26.12.2019 (Annexure exure P-10) be quas e quashed being illegal. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18813 813-2022 2 2. Learned counsel for the petition nfines etitioner, at the very outset, confines his prayer to yer to the extent of counting the past red by e past/daily wage service rendered by the petitioner itioner from 01.03.1995 to 01.10.200 or the 10.2007 as qualifying service for the purpose of pe e of pensionary benefits, on the groun tioner ground that the case of the petitioner is squarely c rely covered by the Full Bench jud esar ch judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand and and others v. State of Punjab and , and and others, 1988(5) SLR 25, and Division Ben
Decision
any, shall also stand disposed of. November P.C ber 18, 2025 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.29 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document