Sarupi Devi And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

1
CWP-35490-2026


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

109
CWP-35490-2026
30.10.2026
Date of Decision:



Sarupi Devi and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR


Present: Mr. Sandeep Antehri with Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocates for the
petitioners.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana-State.




HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in
the nature of mandamus directing respondents to consider the case of
petitioners for grant of Old Pension Scheme by allowing them to give one
time option under the Punjab CSR Vol. II (now Haryana Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 2016) by counting the service rendered by the petitioners
on Part Time/Daily Wages basis with the respondents prior to regularization
of their services by the respondents, in view of the judgment passed by this
Court in Harbans Lal Vs. State of Punjab and others’ 2012(3) SCT 362,
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
CWP-35490-2026


Jai Bhagwan Versus State of Haryana 2020(3) SLR 654 decided on
01.03.2019 and the judgment passed by this Court in Om Parkash Versus
State of Haryana and others, CWP-20263-2024 decided on 09.07.2026.
Further directing respondents to count the entire service rendered by
petitioners on Part Time/Daily Wages with the respondents prior to
regularization of their services for the purpose of pensionary benefits and to
grant them all consequential benefits accordingly.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
were initially appointed on a part-time/daily wage basis in the Education
Department, Haryana and petitioner No.1 was regularized on 01.03.2023
(Annexure P-3). It is contended that the petitioners rendered uninterrupted
service prior to regularisation and, therefore, their pre-regularisation service
is required to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary
benefits. The details of the petitioners, including their initial dates of
appointment, dates of regularisation and respective posts, are tabulated
below:
Sr.
No.
Name of petitioners Date of initial
appointment
on part time/
daily wages
Date of Remarks
regularization
1 Sarupi Devi 19.12.1997 01.03.2023 Retired
2 Sumitra Devi @ Sumitra 01.03.1998 22.02.2023 Working
3 Jaibir @ Jaibir Singh 29.10.1997 19.09.2019 Working
4 Santra 31.12.1997 02.03.2023 Working
5 Surajmukhi 19.12.1997 16.09.2019 Retired
6 Subhash Chander 28.10.1997 20.08.2014 Working
3. Learned counsel relies upon Kesar Chand v. State of Haryana
and others, 1988 (2) PLR 223 ; Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and others,
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
CWP-35490-2026


2012 (3) SCT 362 ; Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab and others, 2019 (4)
SCT 271 ; State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, 2024 NCPHHC
095763 ; and Rajesh Kumar and others v. 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 required to be
counted towards qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits.
4. Learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents-State and per contra submits that the petitioners were initially
appointed on part-time basis and were regularized but exact date of each
petitioners has not been mentioned in the writ petition with relevant proof.
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, the petitioners would
be granted the benefit of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) upon verification.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file with their able assistance.
6. 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.
7. The issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra . This
Court, in Jeewan Lata (supra) , Rajesh Kumar (supra) , Bimla Devi v.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
CWP-35490-2026


Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others (CWP-1672-2026),
decided on 23.01.2026 , Jagdish v. Punjab State Power Corporation
Limited and others (CWP-4590-2026), decided on 16.02.2026 , and Om
Prakash v. 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.
8. The same view is also supported by Zile Singh v. State of
Haryana (CWP-626-2015), decided on 17.03.2015 , which was upheld in
LPA-426-2016, State of Haryana and others v. 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 v. 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.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
CWP-35490-2026


(...)
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
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.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
CWP-35490-2026


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
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
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
CWP-35490-2026


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.

9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 initial engagement and regularization. Upon such verification,
the respondents shall re-fix the petitioners' 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.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
CWP-35490-2026


12. It is made clear that any amount already contributed or paid under
the New Pension Scheme (NPS) shall be adjusted in accordance with law.
.
13 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE

30.10.2026
Puneet Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No


PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.10.31 11:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document