State of Punja njab & Ors. v. Mukhtiar Singh

on confirm and regular basis. RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) All these employees ve under (cid:9) (cid:4)+(cid:4)(cid:9) (cid:9) shadow of apprehension of their bosses o s of being cashiered and have to respect their whims and fa fancies. It is for that reason that in Kesar Chands case (sup upra), the thinking which has been adopted would be fully ully applicable to such like employees. The following obse bservations made by the Full Bench in Kesar Chands case ase (supra) would reflect the aforesaid point of view:7 "Once the services of of a work charged employee have been regularised, t d, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other her public servants under rule

3.17 of the Rules. Equa qual protection of laws must mean the protection of of equal laws for all persons similarly situated. Article icle 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision whi hich is arbitrary involves the negation of equality. y. Even temporary or officiating service under der the State Government has to be reckoned for d determining the qualifying service. It looks to be i e illogical that the period of service spent by an em employee in a work charged establishment before his his regularisation has not been into considerati ration for determining his qualifying service. The The classification which sought to be made among ong Government servants who are eligible for pension ion and those who started as work charged employ loyees and their services regularised subsequentl ntly, and the others is not based on any intelligible ible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. A . After the services of a work charged employees have ave been regularised, he is a public servant like any ny other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of a of arbitrariness, and for these RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9) reasons the provisions of (cid:9) s of rule (ii) of rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struc ruck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitu titution."

18. It is pertinent to notice that hat their Lordships of the Full Bench have kept in the backgro ground two principles that the right to pension is not a bount unty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Gov overnment. That right of superannuation pension includi luding its amount is a valuable right vesting in a Government nt servant. The Full Bench of this Court in K.R. Erry v. T . The State of Punjab, ILR (1967) 1 Punj Har 278, has has laid down the aforesaid principle, which was approv roved by their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in t in the case of Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar, ar, AIR 1971 Supreme Court

1409. Likewise, the Full Ben ench in Kesar Chands case (supra) has also kept in view t w the nexus theory to test the constitutional validity of an any provision of law, as propounded and evolved by Ho Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Krishna Dalm almia v. S. R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 538. It is t is trite to observe that Article 14 forbids discrimination n and any law making classification has to fulfil two o conditions, namely, (i) that the classification is founded o on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons o s or things that are grouped together from those that are le left out of the group, and (ii) that differentia has a rationa ional relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the the statute in question. Once, both the aforesaid principles a s are kept in view then a daily rated employee, who has work orked for more than 10 years, would become entitled to cou ount his service rendered as such on a post, if it is followed ed by regularisation. The very fact that an order of regularisa isation has been passed in his favour would be an admission on on the part of the State that work has been available which ich is of perennial nature and RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:9) he was rendering service again (cid:9) ainst a post. If a work7charged employee is to be granted be benefit of such service then there cannot be any rationale ale basis to exclude a daily rated employee like those who ho are before this Court. It is incidental in Kesar C Chands case (supra) employees who have sought the the relief, were work7charged and not daily wager. We are s e sure that had it been a case of a daily wage employee, who ho had rendered more than 10 years service as such, which is is followed by regularisation, then the same result would hav have followed which has been recorded by the Full Bench in in the case of work7charged employees.

19. It is true that for the purpo rposes of seniority, promotion or some other benefits, the s e service rendered on work7 charge basis, ad hoc basis or d or daily rate basis may not be countable. In that regard relia eliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supre preme Court rendered in the case of Punjab State Electricit icity Board v. Jagjiwan Ram, (2009) 3 SCC 661. However, r, the consideration proceeds on different plane when the q e question of pension comes. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment would have no application when the question ion of considering that period of service the purpose oses of pension is under consideration.

20. It is pertinent to notice tha that a similar issue was dealt with by the Division Bench of of this Court in the case of Sadhu Singh and others v. S . State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 18841 of 2007, deci ecided on 25.7.2008) wherein similar observations were made ade. In the concluding para of the judgment, the Division B Bench made the following directions: "Before parting we deem eem it just and appropriate to direct the State of P Punjab through the Chief Secretary to take steps t s that the cases of this nature RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:9) do not travel to the (cid:9) e Court and the rules are complied with. It may be be necessary for the State to impart some training to to all those officers who deal with such like cases so so as to familiarise them with the rules as laid down i n in the Civil Services Rules. Let appropriate steps be be taken in that regard."

21. The judgment in Sadhu Sing Singhs case was challenged by the State of Punjab before Hon on'ble the Supreme Court and SLP (Civil) No. 10456 of 2009 009, which was dismissed on

22.4.2009. It is further impo portant to mention that the judgment in Sadhu Singhs case ase (supra) has been followed and applied in the case of K Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. No. 1933 of 2009, decided on

6.9.2010). The judgment in K Karnail Singhs case (supra) was challenged in S.L.P. (Civil ivil) No. 17622 of 2010 (State of Punjab and others v. Karna rnail Singh). Coming heavily on the State, their Lordships of of Hon'ble the Supreme Court made the following observatio tions in the said matter, vide order dated 26.11.2010: "Delay condoned. The Government of Pun unjab is known for indulging in frivolous litigation inv involving low paid employees. This Special Leave Pet etition is one such piece of litigation in which legal gality of the order passed by the learned Single Ju Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dir directing payment of pension to the respondent has bee been challenged. We have heard Shri ri Rakesh Khanna, learned Additional Advocate Ge General, Punjab and perused the record. The impugn gned order is founded on an earlier judgment of the D e Division Bench of the same Court in Civil Writ Pet Petition No. 18814 of 2007, Sadhu Singh and other thers v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 25.07 .07.2008. SLP (C) No. 10456 RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:9) of 2009 filed by the (cid:9) e petitioners (respondents?) against the order of the H e High Court in Sadhu Singhs case was dismissed. The Therefore, we do not find any valid ground much less ju s justification to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petitio tition is accordingly dismissed. While dismissing the S Special Leave Petition, we deem it proper to take c ke cognizance of the fact that thousands of cases are are pending before different High Courts involving g g grievance of the employees that they have not bee een paid retiral benefits. In Deokinandan Prasad v. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1409, thi this Court unequivocally held that pension payable to to employees constitute his property within the mea eaning of Article 19 (1)(f) of the Constitution. This v s view has been reiterated in number f subsequent judgments. Unfortunately, despite u e unequivocal declaration of law by the Highest t Court, large number of employees belonging to l to lower strata of service have to seek intervention of th f the Court for release of their retiral dues including lik like pension, gratuity etc. The Government of Pun unjab, like the Government of any other States, has f s framed rules for grant of retiral benefits to the em employees. These rules are a complete code unto them themselves but, we regretfully note that employees and nd officers of different cadres are forced to litigate in in the court by spending their hard earned money for p r paying court fee as also the fees of the lawyers for vi r vindication of their legal and constitutional rights for p or payment of retiral dues. It is y therefore, necessary to give comprehensive directions to the State G Government to take remedial RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document measure. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10) (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:9) For the time being (cid:9) g we direct the Secretary, Department of Personne nel, Government of Punjab to file an affidavit withi ithin six weeks from today enclosing therewith the the statement of all cases pending in various d departments of the State, Accountant General o of the State and various instrumentalities and age agencies of the State in which retiral dues of the employ loyees have not been paid. The Registrar General, l, Punjab and Haryana High Court is also directed to to send a list of cases pending before the High Court rt in which issues involving nonpayment of retiral du dues are being agitated by the employees of the Gove vernment of Punjab and its agencies/instrumentalitie ities. List the case for further her consideration in the third week of January, 2011.

1. The Registry is directed to forward copies of this this order to the Registrar General of Punjab and H d Haryana High Court and the Secretary, Department o t of Personnel, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh by f y fax." 2#(cid:9) (cid:9) :(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:23)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9)4(cid:28)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:16) (cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:10)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:9)Phool Pati’s(cid:9) (cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:22)(cid:18)(cid:28)&(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:25)((cid:9) .(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:9) (cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:9) (cid:27)(cid:17)%!(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:29)(cid:9) (cid:28) (cid:29)(cid:9) (cid:28)&(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:9) (cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9) 4(cid:28)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:18)(cid:9) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9) (cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:18)(cid:9) (cid:1)(cid:10)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:9)CW CWP No.2371 of 2010(cid:9)@(cid:9)Harbans ns Lal v. State of Punjab and others, decid ecided on 31.08.2010(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:9)CWP No No.14278 of 2018 – Babunji Bhagat v. St . State of Punjab and others, deci ecided on 01.02.2023(cid:9)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:19)(cid:17)%(cid:21)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:28)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:27)"(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:9) RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “2. Learned counsel submits its that the petitioner was initially engaged as daily ily wager on 01.02.1980, whereafter on termination of h f her services 21.09.1995, she raised an industrial dispute, te, which led an award by Labour Court

05.11.2008, 05. directing reinstatement with continuity uity of service but without (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:9) granting back wages. Thereaf (cid:9) eafter, she filed a Civil suit no.25/1 of 2011 seeking regula ularization w.e.f. 01.10.2003, that was decreed on 22.05 .05.2012, consequently, her services were regularized vid vide order dated 31.08.2018 w.e.f. 01.10.2003 in the pay sc scale of Rs.255073200/7 plus 3 allowances, Annexure P73 thereafter superannuated on 28.02.2022.

2. Despite this Court having settled the matter in Harbans ns Lal vs. State of Punjab & Ors, CWP No. 2371 of 2010 010, decided on 3170872010, against which SLP was als also dismissed, the service rendered by her prior to regula ularization has not been taken into account for the purpose se of pension, relevant paras whereof read thus :7 "9. Mr. Shalender M Mohan, Advocate petitioner has further a r argued that this issue has been considered in a n number of judgments while interpreting Rule 3.17 .17 A of the CSR Vol.2. Reference can be made ade to the judgments of this Court in case of Kashm shmir Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board and o d others, 2005(4) S.C.T 298: 2005(4) RSJ 581 and Ra Ram Dia and others v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran n Nigam Ltd. and another, 2005(4) RSJ 689, Har ari Chand v. Bhakra Beas Management Board and nd others, 2005(2) S.C.T. 95: 2005(2) RSJ 373 and nd Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 20 2004(3) S.C.T. 698: 2004(4) RSJ 71. Full Bench wh while dealing with a similar controversy in the case se of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) PLR 223 223 has held as under :7 "Once the servi ervices of a work7charged employee have e been regularized, appears to be hard ardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary ry benefits as are available to other public serva rvants under Rule 3.17 of the RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:13)1(cid:4)(cid:9) Rules. Equal prot (cid:9) rotection of laws must mean the protection of of equal laws for all persons similarly situated ted. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness beca ecause a provision which is arbitrary involves ves the negation of equality. Even the tempor orary or officiating service the State te Government has to be reckoned for de determining the qualifying service. It looks to to be illogical that the period of service spent b t by an employee in a work7 charged establishe shed before his regularisation has not been tak taken into consideration for determining he qualifying service. The classification whi hich is sought to be made among Governmen ment servants who are eligible for pension and th d those who started as work7 charged employe loyees and services regularised subse bsequently, and the others is not based on any any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not su t sustainable at law. After the services of a wor work charged employee have been regularized, d, he is a public servant like any other servan ant. To deprive him of the pension is not only nly unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of e of arbitrariness and for these reasons the provis visions of sub rule (ii) of Rule

3.17 of the Rules les have to be struck down being violative e of Article 14 of Constitution."

9. The aforesaid v id view was further reiterated by this Court in th n the cases of Joginder Singh, Hazura Singh an and Nasib Singh (supra). A conjoint reading o g of the rules, quoted above and the observatio tions of the Full Bench would RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:13)<(cid:4)(cid:9) reveal that it is by (cid:9) by now well established that period of ervice rendered on daily wage/work charge rges prior to regularisation of services is liable ble to be counted for the purposes of gratui tuity and pension."

10. The consistent view o w of the judgment is that work charge service rendered red before regularization, is liable to be counted as as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. A D Division Bench of this Court was seized of a case in in which vires of Rule 3.17 A was challenged whereby by half of the service paid out of contingency fund was as to be counted as qualifying service. This rule has as been struck down in a judgment of this Court in rt in case of Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1998 98 Vol.1 SCT 795. Once the entire service paid out of t of contingency, is liable to be counted for the purpos pose of qualifying service, a causal/daily rated serv ervice is also bound to be counted as qualifying ser service.

11. A Division Bench h judgment in case of Smt. Ramesh Tuli v. State of P of Punjab and others, 2007(3) SCT 791 examined the pr e proposition as to what would be the qualifying service ice for pension as per Clause 6(6) of the 1992 Pension sion Scheme applicable to the Punjab Privately Manag nagement Recognised Schools Employees. In paragrap raph 6 of the judgment, the following observation ha has been made:7 "There is another aspect ect of the matter. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the ca case of Vansant Gangaramsa Chandan v. State of M f Maharashtra, 1996(4) SCT 403: JT 1996 (Supp.) SC SC 544, has considered clause 23 of Chapter VI of a f a Pension Scheme of the Hyderabad Agricultural ral Committee, which is as RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document under :7 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:13)2(cid:4)(cid:9) "4. Clause 23 of (cid:9) of Chapter VI in the scheme reads as under: r: "Qualifying service of a Market Committee ttee employee shall commence from the date he t e takes charge of the post to which he is first a st appointed or from the date the employer sta started deducting the P.F. contribution for r the employee which ever later." It was held that the claus auses of the Scheme have to be read by keeping in view t w the fact that pension is not a bounty of the State and nd it is earned by employees after rendering long serv service to fall back upon after their retirement. The sa same cannot be arbitrarily denied. The clause was s s subjected to the principle of 'reading down' a well kn l known tool of interpretation to sustain the constit titutionality of a statutory provision and accordin dingly it was read down to mean that the qualifyin ying service could commence either from the date of t f taking charge of the post to which the employee was as first appointed or from the date he started contrib tributing to the Contributory Provident Fund whichev ever was earlier. The ratio of the above mentioned jud judgment would apply to the facts of the instant case, se, inasmuch as, the provision made in clause 6(6) of t of the 1992 Scheme has to be read down to mean tha that qualifying service would commence from the date ate of continuous appointment, which is 17.8.1965 in th the present case, or from an earlier date if the employ loyer had started contributing to the Contributory Pro Provident Fund whichever is earlier. Therefore, the p e petitioner would be entitled to count her service with ith effect from the date of her appointment and approva oval i.e. 17.8.1965." RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9)

12. The writ petition ion was allowed and (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:13)+(cid:4)(cid:9) (cid:9) petitioners were held en entitled to count their entire service w.e.f. 17.8.1965 65 to 30.9.2001 as qualifying service for the purposes ses of pension. However, the Contributory Provident nt Fund was required to be adjusted and deducted ed from the arrears of her pension. We come to to the conclusion that the petitioners' initial dat date of appointment after regularisation will be th the date on which employee takes charge of the post. st. Once the entire service of a daily wager is to be cou counted as qualifying service then his date of appoint intment will relegate back to his initial date of appo ppointment i.e. 1988 and he cannot be ousted from p pension scheme by applying the date of regularisatio ation i.e. 28.3.2005 which is evidently after the new s w scheme or new restructured defined Contribution P Pension Scheme came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2004.

15. This view has bee een followed by a Division Bench of this Court in c n case of Hans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, 200 005(3) RSJ 262. In this case the Division Bench exam amined the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994. Vide instru structions dated 8.1.1999, the State of Punjab had prov rovided that since the Pension Rules has been made ap applicable in lieu of CPF, the period to be considered red as qualifying for pension has to be restricted to to the period for which the employee was contribu ibuting to his CPF. These instructions were held co contrary to the Pension Rules by the Division Bench. T . The Division Bench held that the said instructions can cannot substitute or supplant the substantive provision ions of the Pension Rules. The RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9) petitioner was held en (cid:9) entitled to count his entire service from 1962 to 199 1998 as qualifying service for the purpose of pensi nsion. The condition qualifying service would uld commence from the date of contribution to the CPF PF, has been rejected by the Division Bench.

16. From the above discu iscussion, we have come to the conclusion that the entir ntire daily wage service of the petitioner 88 from 1988 the date of his regularisation is to be co counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensio sion. He will be deemed to be in govt. service prior t r to 1.1.2004. The new Re7 structured Defined Con ontribution Pension Scheme (Annexure P71) has bee been introduced for the new entrants in the Punjab ab Government Service w.e.f.

01.01.2004, will not be a e applicable to the petitioner. The amendment made vi vide Annexure P72 amending the Punjab Civil Service ices Rules, cannot be further amended by issuing clar larification/instructions dated

30.5.2008 (Annexure P P73). The petitioner will continue to be governed ed by the GPF Scheme and is held entitled to receiv eive pensionary benefits as applicable to the employ loyees recruited in the Punjab Govt. Services prior to 1. o 1.1.2004.

17. In view of the above, ve, the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly respondents ents are directed to treat the whole period of work c k charge service as qualified service for pension n because accordingly clarification issued on n 30.5.2008 (Annexure P73), the new defined Cont ontributory Pension Scheme would be applicable to to all those employees who have been working prior ior to 1.1.2004 but have been regularised thereafter. L . Let his pension and arrears be calculated and pa paid to him expeditiously, RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:9) preferably within a perio (cid:9) eriod of three months from the date of receipt of copy of of this order. ts. 18. No order as to costs. Petition allowed."

3. In Babunji Bhagat vs. S s. State of Punjab and Others, this Court ruled in favor of of a Class IV employee and directed the respondents to rec recognize the service provided as a Daily Wage Cook from Ma May 13, 1995, to October 15, 2010, as qualifying service f e for pensionary and retiral benefits. Relevant paras where ere of read thus: "5. A bare perusal of the the aforesaid provision shows that the same is explicit icit and there is no ambiguity. The service is not requ quired to be rendered in the same cadre to be cove overed under 3.17 Rule. The word used is 'service' a e' and not 'cadre'. Moreover, Division Bench in Ha Harbans Lal's case (supra) explained the import of th f the Rule and held as under:7 "....We come to to the conclusion that the petitioners' initiate iate date of appointment after regularization wi will be the date on which employee takes ch charge of the post. Once the entire service of of a daily wager is to be counted as qualify lifying service then his date of appointment will ill relegate back to his initial date of appointme tment i.e. 1988 and he cannot be ousted from pe pension scheme by applying the date of reg regularization i.e. 28.3.2005 which is evidently ntly after the new scheme or restructure defined Contribution Pension Scheme e came force w.e.f.

1.1.2004."

6. In view of the law la laid down in Harbans Lal's case this Court finds tha that the case of the petitioner RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10) (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:9) would be fully covered (cid:9) ed therein. Consequently, the present writ petition is al s allowed.

7. Accordingly, the respo spondents are directed to treat the whole period of daily aily wage service as qualifying service for pensionary ary/retiral benefits of petitioner and his claim im to pension will be governed as per old Rules and n not under the New Defined Contributory Pension Fu Fund Scheme. ly.” 8. Ordered accordingly.” +#(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:30)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:9)(cid:31)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:10)(cid:28)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:17)%(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:18)&(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:19) (cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:18)(cid:9)$(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:20)(cid:10)(cid:26)(cid:9)$(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:9) (cid:15)$%(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:27) (cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:10)3(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:15)$(cid:10)3(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:15)%(cid:9)&(cid:10)(cid:18) (cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9)%(cid:15).(cid:9)%(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:10).(cid:20)(cid:9) (cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:18) (cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:9)4(cid:28)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:18)#(cid:9) (cid:8)#(cid:9) (cid:9) ’(cid:20)(cid:9) 3(cid:23)(cid:17).(cid:9) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9) (cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:15)$(cid:10)3(cid:17)((cid:9) &(cid:27)(cid:17) &(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:9) &(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:9) (cid:23)(cid:18)(cid:9) (cid:15)%%(cid:10).(cid:17)(cid:21)#(cid:9)(cid:9) ’(cid:16)&(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:9) (cid:10) (cid:9) (cid:10)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:9) (cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:9) (cid:6)(cid:13)#(cid:13)(cid:12)#(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)+(cid:9) (cid:22),(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:17)-(cid:28) (cid:17)-(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:3)(cid:4)2(cid:25)(cid:9) (cid:23)(cid:18)(cid:9) (cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:17)$!(cid:9) (cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:9) (cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:9) *(cid:28)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:21) (cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:9) (cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:18)&(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:18)(cid:9) (cid:15)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:24)(cid:26) (cid:17)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:9) (cid:26)(cid:10)(cid:9) (cid:24)(cid:10)(cid:28)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:23)%!(cid:9) .(cid:15)(cid:29)(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:27)3(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19) (cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9)&(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:27)(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:13)#(cid:13)(cid:6)#(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:8)1(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:10) (cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:7)#(cid:13)(cid:12)#(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:7)2(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:27)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9)&(cid:28)(cid:27)&(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9) &(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:9) (cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:9) (cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:9) (cid:10)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:9) &(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:27)!(cid:9) $(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:23) (cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:18)((cid:9) .(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:9) (cid:15)%%(cid:9) (cid:24)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:17)*(cid:28)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:15)%(cid:9) $(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:18)(cid:9) (cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:21) (cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:9) (cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9) $(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:27)(cid:17)%(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:9) (cid:26)(cid:10)(cid:9) (cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9) &(cid:17) (cid:9) &(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:9) .(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:9) (cid:15)(cid:9) &(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:21)(cid:9) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9) (cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:19) (cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:27)(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:24)(cid:17)(cid:23)&(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:26) (cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:11)(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:10)&!(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:27)#(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:13)(cid:8)#(cid:13)(cid:12)#(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:12)1(cid:9) (cid:14)#(cid:31)#(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:27)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:28)(cid:3) (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:9)(cid:18)&(cid:17)(cid:15))(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:29);(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:9)(cid:9) (cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:27)(cid:9)(cid:14)(cid:17)&(cid:10)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:15)$%(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:9) (cid:9) "(cid:9) "(cid:9) A(cid:17)(cid:18);=(cid:10)(cid:9) A(cid:17)(cid:18);=(cid:10)(cid:9) RAVINDER SINGH 2025.01.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document