Dayal Kaur vs State Of Haryana And Ors

CWP-19147-2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
210
CWP-19147-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.11.2026
Dayal Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Shubhreet Kaur, Advocate
and Mr. D.S. Garcha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.
1. Prayer in this writ petition 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 grant pension and other
pensionary benefits due to the petitioner from the date of retirement on
attaining superannuation i.e., 30.11.2018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia , contends that
the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Sweeper on 30.08.1988 by
the Block Education Officer, Fatehabad and she joined her duties on
01.09.1988 at Government Middle School, District Hisar. The Haryana
State Secondary Education Field Offices (Group D) Service Rules, 1998
were notified on 23.07.1998, wherein Rule 13 provided that matters not
expressly covered by the Rules including pension would be governed by
the rules framed by the competent authority. Thereafter, the Chief
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
13.11.2026 14:26

CWP-19147-2020 2
Secretary to the Government of Haryana issued a policy dated
01.02.1999 for regularization of Group 'D' part-time employees,
excluding the Education Department, which had a separate policy. The
Director of Secondary Education, Haryana, vide memorandum dated
30.12.1998/25.02.1999, prescribed the conditions for regularization of
Class-IV part-time employees, including six years' experience in the
case of direct recruits. As her services were not regularized despite
fulfilling the prescribed conditions, the petitioner filed CWP No. 3565
of 2000 , which was disposed of on 20.02.2002 with a direction to the
respondents to consider her case within a period of six months in terms
of the aforesaid policy dated 30.12.1998/25.02.1999 (Annexure P-1).
However, her services were regularized only on 08.08.2014, whereas
her junior, Shish Pal, had been regularized w.e.f. 01.03.1999 (Annexure
P-2). Accordingly, the petitioner filed CWP No. 17622 of 2017 seeking
parity with her junior. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the
Director of School Education, Haryana, vide communication dated
09.01.2018, directed the District Education Officer, Fatehabad, to grant
her regularization with notional effect from 01.01.1999 and actual effect
from 01.04.2011 as is evident from Annexure P-5, pursuant to which her
pay was re-fixed vide order dated 20.03.2018 (Annexure P-3). Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Haryana Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, notified on 19.07.2016, prescribe a
minimum qualifying service of ten years under Rule 32 for entitlement
to monthly pension. Further, this Court, vide order dated 05.12.2018
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
13.11.2026 14:26

CWP-19147-2020 3
(Annexure P-4), directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's
case. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on
30.11.2018 from Government School, Ratta Theh, District Fatehabad,
and subsequently, CWP No. 17622 of 2017 was dismissed as
infructuous on 18.03.2019 (Annexure P-6), in view of the benefits
granted to her. Despite having been granted regularization with notional
effect from 01.01.1999 and having completed the requisite qualifying
service, the petitioner has been denied pension and other retiral benefits.
She further submits that the representation dated 09.06.2020 (Annexure
P-7) submitted by the petitioner seeking release of pension and other
retiral benefits has also not been acted upon by the respondents.
3. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that the petitioner
was engaged as a part-time Class-IV employee on 01.09.1988 against a
non-sanctioned post and, therefore, she was not eligible for
regularization under the policy dated 30.12.1998/25.02.1999, which
required engagement against a sanctioned post. He further submits that
pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 20.02.2002 in CWP
No. 5926 of 2001 titled as Vidya Devi and others vs. State of Haryana
and others , a fresh regularization policy was framed on 11.11.2003,
superseding the earlier policies. In terms thereof, a District-level
common seniority list was prepared on 30.06.2003, wherein the
petitioner was placed at seniority No. 50 as discernible from Annexure
R-1) and her services were regularized w.e.f. 04.05.2006, keeping in
view her seniority and availability of a sanctioned post. Learned State
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
13.11.2026 14:26

CWP-19147-2020 4
counsel further contends that the New Pension Scheme was introduced
vide Notification dated 18.08.2008, w.e.f. 01.01.2006 (Annexure R-3).
Pursuant to the judgment dated 19.07.2019 passed in CWP No. 16086
of 2019 titled as Pushpa Devi and others vs. State of Haryana and
others , Instructions dated 10.09.2019 were issued for re-examination of
regularization cases. The Committee, upon examining the petitioner's
case, found that she was not eligible for regularization under the earlier
policy as she had been engaged against a non-sanctioned post as is
evident from Annexure R-2. Accordingly, an order was issued on
06.02.2020, regularizing the petitioner w.e.f. 04.05.2006, on the basis of
the seniority list and the policy dated 11.11.2003.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner does not press her claim for regularization from the date
when her junior was regularized and confines her prayer for grant of
pension under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) by counting her past
service rendered prior to regularization, in terms of the judgments
rendered by this Court in 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 .
5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the
prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that she was not regularized
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
13.11.2026 14:26

CWP-19147-2020 5
earlier as she was not having the essential qualification for the post in
question. However, he could not controvert the fact that the past service
rendered by the petitioner is required to be counted in terms of the
aforementioned judgments. He further contends that the petitioner was
regularized w.e.f. 04.05.2006 under the 2003 regularization policy and
in case the facts mentioned in the present petition remain undisputed,
then the petitioner would be granted the benefit of Old Pension Scheme
(OPS) upon verification.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
7. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the
petitioner was initially engaged on part-time/daily wage/ ad hoc basis
and was subsequently regularized pursuant to the applicable
regularization policy.
8. 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.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
13.11.2026 14:26

CWP-19147-2020 6
9. 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
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."
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
13.11.2026 14:26

CWP-19147-2020 7
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 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
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
13.11.2026 14:26

CWP-19147-2020 8
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 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
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
13.11.2026 14:26

CWP-19147-2020 9
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.
10. In view of the aforesaid settled position, the respondents
cannot exclude the petitioner's continuous pre-regularization service
while determining qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary
benefits.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to count the petitioner's 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.
12. The petitioner shall consequently be entitled to the benefit
of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), subject to verification of the dates
and 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
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
13.11.2026 14:26

CWP-19147-2020 10
a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
13. It is made clear that any amount already contributed or paid
under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) shall be adjusted in accordance
with law.
14. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
12.11.2026
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.
13.11.2026 14:26