Balwan Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
115+117+121+132+133
Date of decision: 02.11.2026
1. CWP-35696-2026 (O&M)
Balwan Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
2. CWP-35705-2026 (O&M)
Bala Devi and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
3. CWP-35757-2026 (O&M)
Jagseer Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
4. CWP-35995-2026 (O&M)
Anaib Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
5. CWP-36005-2026 (O&M)
Dropti and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Bishan Dass Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-35696-2026
and CWP-36005-2026.
Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-35705-2026.
Mr. Laxman Choudhary, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-35757-2026.
Mr. Jitender Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-35995-2026.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana
in all the cases.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ
petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
2. Prayer in all the captioned writ petitions filed under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in
the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count the entire
service rendered by the petitioners from the date of their initial
engagement on temporary/part-time basis till their regularization along
with the subsequent regular service as qualifying service for pensionary
benefits and consequently extend to the petitioners the benefit of the
Old Pension Scheme in terms of the law laid down by this Hon'ble
Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Jai Bhagwan, 2024
NCPHHC 095763 , Om Prakash vs. State of Haryana and others
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 3
(CWP-20263-2024), decided on 09.07.2026 , and other judgments
governing the field and to re-fix and release the pension gratuity and all
other consequential retiral benefits by taking into account their entire
qualifying service including the pre-regularization temporary/part-time
service along with consequential arrears and interest.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submit that the
petitioners were initially appointed on temporary/part-time basis on
various dates in different Government schools in the State of Haryana
and they were subsequently regularized. The petitioners continued to
render uninterrupted service prior to regularization and, therefore, such
pre-regularization service is liable to be counted as qualifying service
for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
4. The details of all the petitioners, as given in their respective
writ petitions, are as under:
CWP-35696-2026
(BALWAN SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS)
Sr.
No.
Name of
Petitioner (s)
Initial Date of Appointment
Date/Year of
Regularization
1 Balwan Singh 20.11.1998 03.08.2011
2 Harmeet Singh 06.09.2002 15.05.2017
3 Buta Singh 05.09.1994 2014
4 Bijender
(Part-Time)
01.08.2002 21.10.2017
Kumar
5 Birmati Devi 01.03.1999 25.08.2014
6 Dilbag 04.03.2003 15.05.2017
7 Savitri Devi 01.05.1997 13.08.2014

MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 4
CWP-35705-2026
(BALA DEVI AND OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS)
Sr.
No.
Name of
Petitioner(s)
Initial Date of
Appointment (Part-
Date of
Regularization
Time)
1 Bala Devi (W/o
26.10.2002 18.12.2017
Kartar Singh)
2 Kamlesh 20.09.1991 30.05.2013
3 Naresh Kumar 31.08.1998 13.08.2014
4 Amita 24.08.1998 23.08.2014
5 Dalmira 03.03.1992 22.08.2014
6 Ramsharan 25.08.1990 07.05.2013
7 Raghbir Singh 23.06.1998 17.06.2013
8 Bala Devi (W/o
24.08.1998 23.08.2014
Partap Singh)
9 Jagdish Chand 08.07.1998 21.05.2023
10 Rajkali 05.11.1990 09.05.2013
11 Santari 03.04.1998 03.05.2013
12 Maya Devi 18.07.1998 26.08.2014
13 Samsher 23.06.1998 17.06.2013
14 Chander Bhan 15.12.2000 25.08.2014
15 Krishan Kumar 25.08.1990 07.05.2013
16 Amarjeet Kaur 20.08.1998 23.08.2014
17 Guddi 20.12.1991 30.06.2013
18 Lal Singh 16.12.1989 14.08.2014
19 Pyari Devi 06.07.1998 15.05.2013
20 Roshan Lal 06.07.1998 13.05.2013
21 Bimla 27.03.2001 21.08.2017
22 Birmati 06.07.1998 07.05.2013
CWP-35757-2026
(JAGSEER SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS)
Sr.
No.
Name of
Petitioner(s)
Initial Date of
Appointment (Part-
Date of
Regularization
Time)
1 Jagseer Singh 06.01.2003 15.05.2017
2 Sheela Devi 24.10.2000 06.03.2018
3 Salochna Devi 01.03.2002 08.08.2014
4 Karam Chand 03.04.1990 08.08.2014
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 5
5 Sukhdev Singh 17.08.1999 27.08.2014
6 Melo Kaur W/o
28.02.2002 20.07.2017
Hema Singh
7 Melo Kaur W/o
17.12.2002 14.04.2014
Thandu Singh
8 Raj Devi 09.04.2001 25.07.2017
9 Bhoop Singh March, 1994 08.08.2014

CWP-35995-2026
(ANAIB SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS)
Sr.
No.
Name of
Petitioner(s)
Initial Date of
Appointment (Part-Time)
Date of
Regularization
1 Anaib Singh 14.12.1993 11.07.2019
2 Satpal S/o Barkha
17.08.1994 12.07.2019
Ram
3 Jernelo Devi 02.11.1999 21.05.2020
4 Karnailo 20.12.1997 09.07.2019
5 Atwari Lal 20.02.1985 20.08.2014
6 Kalu Ram 17.02.1995 12.07.2019
7 Satpal S/o
05.02.1992 22.08.2014
Kapoora
8 Dasi Devi 03.11.1998 16.07.2019
9 Mahindro Devi 09.02.1995 12.07.2019
10 Angoori Devi 03.01.1989 23.08.2014
11 Arun Kumar 18.05.1995 12.07.2019
12 Bimla Devi 16.07.1992 20.08.2014
13 Satya Devi 01.03.1995 09.07.2019
14 Rajender Singh 03.11.1997 09.07.2019
15 Balbir 03.11.1998 12.07.2019
16 Nathi Ram 10.05.1995 09.07.2019
17 Satpal S/o
11.09.1992 09.07.2019
Jeetram
18 Nirmala Devi 20.07.1994 09.07.2019

CWP-36005-2026
(DROPTI AND OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS)
Sr.
No.
Name of
Petitioner(s)
Initial Date of Appointment
Date of
Regularization
1 Dropti 07.08.2002 14.08.2014
(Part-Time)
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 6
2 Bhalia Devi 01.03.1997 09.09.2019
3 Madho Devi 24.09.2002 09.09.2019
4 Ramesh
16.10.2002 14.08.2014
Kumar
5 Mahinder
18.11.1991 14.08.2014
Singh
6 Satbir Singh 01.09.2002 25.08.2014
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) relies upon Kesar
Chand vs. State of Haryana and others, 1988 (2) PLR 223 ; Harbans
Lal vs. State of Punjab and others, 2012 (3) SCT 362 ; Jeewan Lata vs.
State of Punjab and others, 2019 (4) SCT 271 ; State of Haryana and
others vs. Jai Bhagwan, 2024 NCPHHC 095763 ; and Rajesh Kumar
and others vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-12826-2017, decided
on 22.12.2025 , to contend that continuous part-time/daily wage/ ad hoc
service followed by regularization is liable to be counted towards
qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits.
6. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that the
petitioner(s) were initially appointed on part-time/daily wage/ ad hoc
basis and were subsequently regularized, as discussed hereinabove .
However, he is not in a position to controvert the fact that the past
services rendered by the petitioner(s) are required to be counted in terms
of the aforementioned judgments. He further contends that in case the
facts mentioned in the present petitions remain undisputed, then all the
petitioners would be granted the benefit of Old Pension Scheme (OPS)
upon verification.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 7
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
8. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the
petitioners were initially engaged on temporary/part-time basis on
various dates in different Government schools and they were
subsequently regularized, pursuant to the applicable regularization
policy.
9. The issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra .
This Court, in Jeewan Lata (supra) , Rajesh Kumar (supra) , Bimla
Devi vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, (CWP-
1672-2026), decided on 23.01.2026 , Jagdish vs. Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited and others (CWP-4590-2026), decided on
16.02.2026 , and Om Prakash vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP-
20263-2024), decided on 09.07.2026 , has held that pre-regularization
part-time/daily wage/ ad hoc /temporary service, followed by regular
service, is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of
pensionary benefits.
10. The same view is also supported by Zile Singh vs. State of
Haryana (CWP-626-2015), decided on 17.03.2015 , which was upheld
in LPA-426-2016, State of Haryana and others vs. Zile Singh, decided
on 18.03.2016 , and Jai Bhagwan's case (supra) . Recently, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Punjab School Education Board and another vs.
Satnam Singh and others, Civil Appeal No.6865 of 2022, 2026 INSC
965 , has also held that pre-regularization contract/ad hoc/daily-wage
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 8
service is liable to be counted as qualifying service for pension, subject
to the applicable facts and law. The operative part of the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satnam Singh’s case
(supra) , reads as follows:
26. Once it is established that the services were
regularized, it remains to be seen whether the
service rendered prior to August 2004 must be
counted as qualifying service for the purpose of
retiral benefits. In this regard, the relevant
provisions of the applicable Punjab School
Education Board (Employees' Pension, Provident
Fund and Gratuity) Regulations, 1991 are
reproduced below:
"3. Only such Board employees shall qualify
for pension who were holding substantively
permanent posts on the date of their
retirement.
(...)
5. Unless there is anything repugnant in the
subject or context the terms used in these
regulations shall be used in the sense here-in-
alter explained:-
(...)
(i). 'Qualifying Service' generally includes all
periods spent on duty without interruption and
all periods of leave in which leave salary is
paid."
Moreover, Regulation 8(2) states that:
"Pensionary benefits shall be determined with
reference to the qualifying service rendered
and the emoluments/average emoluments last
drawn by him."
27. On the strength of these provisions, we
may briefly re-examine the issue. To quote from the
seminal decision in D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 9
of India, 1982 INSC 103, pension is neither a bounty
nor ex-gratia payment but a payment for the past
service rendered. The Constitution Bench of this
Court in D.S. Nakara (supra) had also rightly
observed that payment of pension is a social welfare
measure rendering socio-economic justice. As the
above-mentioned provisions, too, codify, pension is a
deferred wage that must be assessed and paid on the
basis of the service rendered by the employee. When
an employee has rendered long and continuous
service, and stands ultimately regularized, denial of
pensionary benefits based on technicalities or
artificialities is generally unjustified.
28. We note that the respondent-employees
have contended that the question of whether pre-
regularization service should be counted toward
qualifying service for pensionary benefits has
already been conclusively settled in a plethora of
judgments and even in an analogous factual matrix
by the same High Court in Harbans Lal v. The State
of Punjab & Others, 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 8181
vide its decision dated 31.08.2010. Said decision
was ultimately affirmed by a Division Bench of this
Court in SLP (C) No.23578 of 2012. Respondent-
employees also draw our attention to the fact that
Harbans Lal (supra) itself relies on a Full Bench
judgment of the High Court pertaining to a similar
controversy, namely Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab
etc. AIR 1988 P&H 265.
29. We find that the Division Bench had
correctly placed reliance on Harbans Lal (supra). To
recapitulate, in that case, the concerned employee
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 10
was initially appointed as a Pump Operator on
01.08.1988 on a daily-wage basis. His services were
regularized on 28.03.2005. Pursuant to the direction
of the State Government dated 30.05.2008, the Chief
Engineer had directed that GPF deductions be
stopped for workers (including said employee) who
had entered Government service before 01.01.2004
but were regularized afterwards. The High Court in
those facts had held that the daily-wage service from
1988 until regularization had to be counted as
qualifying service for pension. Because that service
began before 01.01.2004, he was deemed to have
entered Government service before the cut-off date.
Consequently, the new Defined Contribution
Pension Scheme did not apply to him. The High
Court further held that the 30.05.2008 clarification
could not amend or override the statutory
amendment to the Punjab Civil Services Rules, and
the employee therefore remained governed by the
GPF Scheme and was entitled to the pensionary
benefits applicable to Punjab Government
employees recruited before 01.01.2004.
30. Here, too, the Single Judge and Division
Bench had rightly held that the services by
respondent-employees rendered on contract/ad
hoc/daily wage basis prior to regularization must be
computed as qualifying service for the purpose of
retiral and pension benefits. The breaks in service
were either 'notional' or artificial/administrative
breaks, or precipitated by Court orders. They must
be ignored and the service should be treated as
continuous.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 11
31. The fact that the appellant-Board is an
autonomous body cannot come to its rescue; in fact,
the High Court on 14.12.2001 had upheld that it was
free to adopt or reject the Government Policy dated
23.01.2001, despite it being made expressly
applicable to public sector undertakings,
corporations, boards, local authorities and other
autonomous bodies in the State of Punjab. The
appellant-Board had thereafter voluntarily adopted
the policy mutatis mutandis. In fact, we also find that
this dimension i.e., mutatis mutandis rather than
wholesale adoption, also negatives the appellant-
Board's various contentions such as that the
respondent-employees had to qualify a typewriting
test, complete one year probation period, produce
medical certificate, etc. as this merely indicates
suitable amendment of the regularization policy to
meet the appellant-Board's needs and not fresh
appointment per se.
32. We note that respondent-employees have
also drawn our attention to the fact that employees
similarly situated in other departments have been
granted identical relief by the High Court itself and
to hold the respondents, ineligible now would be
prima facie discriminatory.
33. On a cumulative assessment of the
material on record, therefore, we are satisfied that
the decisions of the Courts below are legally sound
and based on correct application of law to facts, and
there is no illegality or infirmity that would warrant
our interference in appeal. The respondent-
employees were indeed regularized and are entitled
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 12
to be treated as having entered Government service
prior to 01.01.2004 and therefore fall under Tier II
of the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme. They
have the discretion to choose either the old GPF
pension scheme or the new scheme, if they opt for it.
34. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
11. In view of the aforesaid settled position, the respondents
cannot exclude the petitioners' continuous pre-regularization service
while determining qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary
benefits.
12. Accordingly, all the present petitions are allowed. The
respondents are directed to count the services of the petitioners from the
respective dates of their initial engagement on temporary/part-time basis
(as detailed in the tables in Paragraph 4 above) till their respective dates
of regularization, followed by regular service as qualifying service for
the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.
13. The petitioners shall consequently be entitled to the benefit
of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), subject to verification of the dates
and factual particulars of their initial engagement and regularization.
Upon such verification, the respondents shall re-fix the petitioners'
pensionary/retiral benefits and release the consequential benefits along
with arrears within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29

CWP-35696-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 13
14. It is made clear that any amount already contributed or paid
under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) shall be adjusted in accordance
with law.
15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
16. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected cases.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
02.11.2026
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
03.11.2026 14:29