Dharmender And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
1
CWP-36416-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
130
CWP-36416-2026
Date of Decision:04.11.2026
Dharmender and another .....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and Others ….Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Kushagra Beniwal and Mr. Mohit Saini, Advocates for the
petitioners.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J.
1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ,
particularly in the nature of mandamus , directing the respondents to grant
the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the petitioners by taking into
consideration the services rendered by them as Part-Time Class-IV
employees towards qualifying service and to permit them to open GPF
accounts, along with all consequential benefits, including gratuity, pension
and commutation, together with arrears carrying interest @ 12% per annum
from the due date till the date of actual payment and further for directing the
respondents to decide the case of the petitioners in the same terms as already
decided by this Court in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana and others,
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.04 15:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
2
CWP-36416-2026
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases, vide common judgment dated
09.07.2026 (Annexure P-9), whereby similarly situated employees have
been granted the aforesaid relief.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia , contends that the
petitioners were appointed as Class-IV part-time employees on 05.04.2002
as is discernible from Annexures P-1 and P-2. They were regularized as
Chowkidar and Sukh-Sahayak vide orders dated 10.09.2019 and are
currently serving as Peons. The Government of Haryana issued Office
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 directing 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. He further
submitted that the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgment
rendered by this Court in Om Parkash vs. State of Haryana and others,
CWP-20263-2024 (Annexure P-9) and petitioner’s case falls under Category
No.1, vide which directions were issued to count pre-regularization service
rendered before 01.01.2006 for pension under the Old Pension Scheme.
3. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that the petitioners
were initially appointed on part-time/daily wage/ ad hoc basis and were
regularized on 10.09.2019 . However, he is not in a position to controvert the
fact that the past service rendered by the petitioners is required to be counted
in terms of the aforementioned judgments. He further contends that in case
the facts mentioned in the present petition remain undisputed, then the
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.04 15:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
3
CWP-36416-2026
petitioners would be granted the benefit of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) upon
verification.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
5. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioners
were initially engaged on part-time/daily wage/ ad hoc basis and were
subsequently regularized pursuant to the applicable regularization policy.
6. The issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra . This
Court, in Kesar Chand (supra), Harbans (supra) ; Jai Bhagwan (supra) and
Om Parkash (supra) 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.
7. 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 Satnam Singh (supra) , has also held that pre-
regularization contract/ad hoc/daily-wage 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
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.04 15:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
4
CWP-36416-2026
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 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
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.04 15:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
5
CWP-36416-2026
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 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.
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
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.04 15:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
6
CWP-36416-2026
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 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.
8. 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.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed . The respondents
are directed to count the petitioners’ service from the date of initial
engagement on part-time/daily wage/ ad hoc basis till regularization,
followed by regular service, as qualifying service for the purpose of pension
and other retiral benefits.
10. The petitioners shall consequently be entitled to the benefit of
the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), subject to verification of the dates and
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.04 15:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
7
CWP-36416-2026
factual particulars of initial engagement and regularization. Upon such
verification, the respondents shall re-fix the petitioner's pensionary/retiral
benefits and release the consequential benefits within a period of 03 months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. It is made clear that any amount already contributed or paid
under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) shall be adjusted in accordance with
law.
12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
04.11.2026 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
parul verma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.04 15:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment