Kunta Devi vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
227
CWP-26921-2021
Date of Decision : 08.09.2026
Kunta Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through
its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Ms. Rimple Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing
the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a writ of certiorari for setting aside the order dated
10.07.2020 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.2, whereby the
claim of the deceased husband of the petitioner to count the daily wage
and work-charged services rendered by him before his regularization as
qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, has been
rejected. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to consider the claim of the deceased husband of the
petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits by taking into account his
entire service, including the services rendered before regularization,
and consequently, release the entire arrears along with interest @ 18%
per annum thereon from the date the said amount became due till its
actual payment.
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 2
2. The brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the
petition, are that the husband of the petitioner, namely Dharam
Chand (now deceased), was initially engaged as a daily wager on
27.10.1981 at Guru Gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant, Ropar.
Subsequently, he was made work-charged employee on 07.07.1986
and he worked as such upto 08.07.1999. Thereafter, his services
were regularized w.e.f. 09.07.1999. He retired from service as
Technician, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 29.02.2012. At
the time of retirement of the husband of the petitioner, the pensionary
benefits were granted only for the period from 09.07.1999 to 29.02.2012
and the earlier services rendered by him as daily wager and work-
charged from 27.10.1981 to 08.07.1999 had not been counted for the
purpose of pensionary benefits. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner
submitted a representation dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure P-2) to the
respondents for counting the services rendered by him as daily wager
and work-charged employee for grant of pensionary benefits, but no
action was taken by the respondents on the same. Consequently, the
husband of the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.1722
of 2020 (Dharam Chand Vs. The Punjab State Power Corporation
Limited and others) for claiming the abovesaid benefit. The said writ
petition was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 23.01.2020
(Annexure P-3), with a direction to the respondents to decide the
representation dated 18.12.2019, submitted by the petitioner, by passing
a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of the order. Thereafter, the husband of the
petitioner again submitted a representation dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 3
P-4) to the respondents requesting compliance of order dated
23.01.2020 (Annexure P-3), passed by this Court. The respondent-
Corporation sent a letter dated 08.05.2020 (Annexure P-5) to the
husband of the petitioner for preparing his proper case and for filing an
affidavit for getting the benefits of work-charged service. In response
thereto, the husband of the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 15.05.2020
(Annexure P-6) to the respondent-Corporation for getting the benefits of
the work charged service. He also requested that the amount of
employer’s share may be deducted from his payable benefits.
Thereafter, respondents No.2 has passed the impugned order dated
10.07.2020 (Annexure P-1), rejecting the claim of the husband of the
petitioner. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner unfortunately died
on 29.05.2021 and the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
3. Short reply by way of an affidavit of Sh. Rajan Sharma,
Senior Xen., Mechanical Auxiliary Cell, MM-1, Guru Gobind Singh
Super Thermal Plant, PSPCL, Rupnagar, Punjab on behalf of the
respondents, has been filed, wherein the respondents have reiterated the
same stand as was taken while rejecting the petitioner's claim in the
impugned order dated 10.07.2020.
4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner confines the relief sought in the instant petition to the
counting of work-charged service rendered by the petitioner’s husband
from 07.07.1986 to 08.07.1999 for the purpose of pensionary benefits
and gives up the claim for counting the period of service rendered on
daily-wage basis. She further submits that the work-charged service
rendered by the petitioner’s husband from 07.07.1986 to 08.07.1999 is
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 4
liable to be counted for pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 3.17-A of
the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, Part II.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents, while
referring to the averments made in the reply, filed on behalf of the
respondents, submits that, vide letter dated 08.05.2020, the husband of
the petitioner was asked to give his consent to consider his work-charge
service for pensionary benefits. Although, he has given his consent by
an affidavit dated 15.05.2020 but with respect to the deposit of
employer’s contribution in his PF and FPF with interest, he made a
request to deduct the same from his payable pensionary benefits.
Thereafter, vide letter dated 08.06.2020, the husband of the petitioner
was again asked to deposit share of employer’s contribution in his PF &
FPF account with interest @ 12% but till date the same has not been
deposited. Therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. In response thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the employer’s contribution in PF & FPF with interest,
which was required to be deposited by the husband of the petitioner,
could be deducted/adjusted from his payable pensionary benefits.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner was initially
engaged as a daily wager on 27.10.1981 at Guru Gobind Singh
Super Thermal Plant, Ropar. Subsequently, he was made work-
charged employee on 07.07.1986 and he worked as such upto
08.07.1999. Thereafter, his services were regularized w.e.f. 09.07.1999.
The husband of the petitioner retired from service as Technician, on
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 5
attaining the age of superannuation, on 29.02.2012.
9. The only question which arises for consideration in the
present petition is as to whether the past service rendered by the
petitioner on work-charged basis is countable towards pensionary
benefits or not?
10. A Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand Vs. State of
Punjab Through The Secretary, P.W.D.B. & R. Chandigarh and
others :1988(5) SLR 27 has held that the work-charged service rendered
by an employee followed by regularization is countable towards
pensionary benefits. Para 19 of the said judgment reads thus :-
“19. In the light of the above, let us examine the validity
of rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II.
This rule says that the period of service in a work-charged
establishment shall not be taken into account in calculating
the qualifying service. After the services of a work-charged
employee have been regularised he becomes a public
servant. The service is under the Government and is paid
by it. This is what was precisely stated in the Industrial
Award dated June 1, 1972, between the Workmen and the
Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (B.& R.), Establishment Branch,
Punjab, Patiala, which was published in the Government
Gazette dated July 14, 1972. Even otherwise, the matter
was settled by the Punjab Government Memo No. 14095-
th
BRI (3)-72/5383 dated 6 February, 1973 (Annexure P7)
where it was stated that all those work-charged employees
th
who had put in ten years of service or more as on 15
August, 1972, their service would be deemed to have been
regularised. Once the service of a work charged employee
have been regularised, there appears to be hardly any logic
to deprive him of the Pensionary benefits as are available
to other public servants under rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal
protection of laws must mean the protection of equal laws
for all persons similarly situated. Article 14 strike at
arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary
involves the negation of equality. Even the temporary or
officiating service under the State Government had to be
reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 6
be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee
in a work charged establishment before his regularisation
has not been taken into consideration for determining his
qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be
made among Government servants who are eligible for
lesion and those who started as work-charged employees
and their services regularised subsequently, and the others
is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is
not sustainable at law. After the services of a work –
charged employee have been regularised, he is a public
servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the
pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the
vice of arbitrariness, and for these reasons the provisions
of sub rule (ii) of rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck
down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
11. The similar issue has been considered by this Court in
Dharvinder Paul Sehgal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others :
2025 NCPHHC 163455 , wherein after considering the provisions of
Rule 3.17-A and various other judgments on the similar issue, it has
been held as under:-
“11. Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules
(Volume II) deals with the counting of service rendered in
an establishment and provides that service rendered in an
establishment would be counted as qualifying service, if the
employee has submitted resignation for taking up another
appointment and said resignation has been accepted.
12. Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules reads
as under: -
“ Rule 3.17-A. (1) Subject to the provisions of rule
4.23 and other rules and except in the cases
mentioned below, all service rendered on
establishment, interrupted or continuous, shall count
as Qualifying service:–
(i) Omitted.
(ii) Omitted.
(iii) Casual or daily rated service.
(iv) Suspension adjudged as a specific
penalty.
Note.– In cases where an officer dies or is permitted
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 7
to retire while under suspension will not be treated
as an interruption.
(v) Service preceding resignation except
where such resignation is allowed to be
withdrawn in public interest by the
appointing authority as provided in the
relevant rules or where such resignation
has been submitted to take up, with
proper permission, another appointment
whether temporary or permanent under
the Government where service qualifies
for pension.
(vi) Joining time for which no allowances
are admissible under rules 9.1 and 9.15
of C.S.R., Volume I, Part I.
(vii) If any unauthorised leave of absence
occurs in continuation of authorized
leave of absence and if the post of the
absentee has been substantively filled
up, the past service of the absentee is
forfeited.
(viii) Transfer to a non-qualifying service in
an establishment not under Government
control or if such transfer is not made
by the competent authority and transfer
to service in a grant-in-aid school.
(A Government employee, who
voluntarily resigns qualifying service,
cannot claim the benefit under this
clause.)
(ix) Removal from public service for
misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not
due to age, or failure to pass an
examination will entail forfeiture of the
past service.
(x) Service rendered beyond the date of
retirement on superannuation in terms
of rule 3.26 of Punjab Civil Services
Rules, Volume I, Part I.
(2) An interruption in the service of a Government
employee caused by wilful absence from duty or
unathorised absence without leave, shall entail
forfeiture of the past service.
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 8
(3) Wilful abstinence from performing duties by a
Government employee by resort to pen down strike
shall be deemed to be wilful absence from duty and
shall also entail forfeiture of the past service.
Note .– In the case of a Central Government
employee who is permanently transferred to the
Punjab Government and becomes subject to these
rules, the pensionary benefits admissible for service
under Central Government would be that admissible
under the Government of India rules and the liability
for such benefits shall be allocated in accordance
with the prevalent orders.
Clarification (1).–Even after the introduction of rule
3.17(A) and deletion of rule 4.21 the following cases
do not entail forfeiture of past service:–
(a) authorised leave of absence;
(b) abolition of post or loss of appointment
owing to reduction in establishment.
(“Post” or “appointment” means a post or
appointment service in which qualifies for
pension).
(2) While counting such qualifying service for
working out aggregate service, the period of break in
service shall be omitted.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7.5 of PCS Rules provides that
resignation submitted for taking up another appointment
with Government, shall not entail forfeiture of past service,
if there is permission by Competent Authority. Sub-Rule (2)
of Rule 7.5 of PCS Rules is reproduced as below: -
“A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past
service if it has been submitted to take up, with
proper permission, another appointment, whether
temporary or permanent, under the Government
where service qualifies for pension.”
13. The said provisions have been interpreted by this
Court in Jasdeep Singh Aulakh’s case (supra) . In the said
case, petitioner had rendered service as Assistant Engineer
from 1996 to 2004 in Punjab State Electricity Board
(hereinafter referred to as ‘PSEB’) and thereafter he
participated in the direct recruitment process of PCS
(Executive Branch) and was selected in 2004 and joined
PCS (Executive Branch) after submitting resignation to his
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 9
parent department i.e. PSEB, which was accepted and his
pay was protected. The relevant paras from the said
judgment read as under: -
“10. From the perusal of above quoted Rules 3.17-
A and 7.5 (2) of PCS Rules, it is quite evident that
service rendered with an establishment is counted for
qualifying service if an employee resigns with the
permission of Competent Authority and for the
purpose of taking up employment with Government.
The respondent has failed to controvert applicability
of aforesaid Rule to petitioner except pleading that
instructions do not provide for counting previous
service.
11. It is settled proposition of law that instructions
can supplement statutory provisions but cannot
supplant the statutory provisions. The instructions
cannot be contrary to mandate of Rules. The said
instructions are not under challenge, however, being
contrary to statutory provisions as well as intent of
beneficial scheme cannot detain this Court.
12. The Supreme Court in Shree Bhagwati Steel
Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise
and another, (2016) 3 SCC 643 , has observed that
Rules or Regulations which are ultra vires though
not challenged may be ignored. The relevant extracts
of the judgment read as:
“28. Shri Aggarwal in order to buttress his
submission that he ought to be allowed to
raise a pure question of law going to the very
jurisdiction to levy interest, cited before us the
judgment in Bharathidasan University v. All-
India Council for Technical Education
[Bharathidasan University v. All-India
Council for Technical Education, (2001) 8
SCC 676 : 1 SCC 924] and in particular para
14 thereof which reads as follow: (SCC pp.
688- 89)
“14. The fact that the Regulations may
have the force of law or when made
have to be laid down before the
legislature concerned does not confer
any more sanctity or immunity as
though they are statutory provisions
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 10
themselves. Consequently, when the
power to make Regulations is confined
to certain limits and made to flow in a
well-defined canal within stipulated
banks, those actually made or shown
and found to be not made within its
confines but outside them, the courts are
bound to ignore them when the question
of their enforcement arises and the mere
fact that there was no specific relief
sought for to strike down or declare
them ultra vires, particularly when the
party in sufferance is a respondent to
the lis or proceedings cannot confer any
further sanctity or authority and validity
which it is shown and found to
obviously and patently lack. It would,
therefore, be a myth to state that the
Regulations made under Section 23 of
the Act have ‘constitutional’ and legal
status, even unmindful of the fact that
any one or more of them are found to be
not consistent with specific provisions of
the Act itself. Thus, the Regulations in
question, which AICTE could not have
made so as to bind universities/UGC
within the confines of the powers
conferred upon it, cannot be enforced
against or bind a university in the
matter of any necessity to seek prior
approval to commence a new
department or course and programme in
technical education in any university or
any of its departments and constituent
institutions.”
29. It would be seen that Shri Aggarwal is
on firm ground because this Court has
specifically stated that rules or regulations
which are in the nature of subordinate
legislation which are ultra vires are bound to
be ignored by the courts when the question of
their enforcement arises and the mere fact that
there is no specific relief sought for to strike
down or declare them ultra vires would not
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 11
stand in the court's way of not enforcing them.
We also feel that since this is a question of the
very jurisdiction to levy interest and is
otherwise covered by a Constitution Bench
decision of this Court, it would be a travesty of
justice if we would not allow Shri Aggarwal to
make this submission.”
13. A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in
State of Haryana Vs. Shamsher Jang Bahadur,
1972(2) SCC 188 , while relying upon Constitution
Bench judgment in Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of
Rajasthan and another, AIR 1967 SC 1910 has held
that Government is not Competent to alter the Rules
framed under Article 309 by means of administrative
instructions. The relevant extracts of the judgment
reads as:
“7. It may be noted that herein we are dealing
only with those who were promoted from the
cadre of clerks in the Secretariat. The first
question arising for decision is whether the
Government was competent to add by means
of administrative instructions to the
qualifications prescribed under the Rules
framed under Article 309. The High Court and
the courts below have come to the conclusion
that the Government was incompetent to do so.
This Court has ruled in Sant Ram Shama v.
State of Rajasthan [(1968) 1 SCR 111] that
while the Government cannot amend or
supersede the statutory rules by administrative
instructions, if the rules are silent on any
particular point, the Government can fill up
the gaps and supplement the rules and issue
instructions not inconsistent with the rules
already framed. Hence we have to see whether
the instructions with which we are concerned,
so far as relate to the clerks in the Secretariat
amend or they alter the conditions of service
prescribed by the rules framed under Article
309. Undoubtedly the instructions issued by
the Government add to those qualifications.
By adding to the qualifications already
prescribed by the rules, the Government has
really altered the existing conditions of
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 12
service. The instructions issued by the
Government undoubtedly affects the
promotion of concerned officials and therefore
they relate to their conditions of service. The
Government is not competent to alter the rules
framed under Article 309 by means of
administrative instructions. We are unable to
agree with the contention of the State that by
issuing the instructions in question, the
Government had merely filled up a gap in the
rules. The rules can be implemented without
any difficulty. We see no gap in the rules.”
14. A rule cannot operate contrary to a statutory
provision whereunder said rule has been made.
Rules cannot be contrary to statutory provisions.
Similarly, neither instructions can be contrary to
statutory provisions nor rules. The instructions
cannot override or flow beyond the banks of river of
rules. The instructions, which are contrary to Rules,
need to be ignored.
15. In the case in hand, the case of petitioner is
squarely covered by afore-stated Rules, however, his
claim has been rejected on account of instructions
which are contrary to Rules framed under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution. In view of afore-
stated legal position, the instructions need to be
ignored. It is apt to notice here that respondent has
granted similar benefit to identically placed other
employees.
16. In the wake of above discussion and findings,
the present petition deserves to be allowed and
accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated
31.01.2023 (Annexure P-17) is hereby quashed.”
The said judgment has become final as the same has not
been challenged by the respondents and has been
implemented after filing of COCP-3243 of 2024 (Jasdeep
Singh Aulakh v. Anurag Verma, IAS and others) .
14. To the same effect is the judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench in Yash Pal Singh Rana (supra) . In the said case,
the petitioner had joined the Punjab Land Development
and Reclamation Corporation Limited as Clerk on
01.11.1975 and thereafter he was promoted as Senior
Assistant. While he was working in the said Corporation,
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 13
due to weak financial status of the said Corporation, the
same was wound up and during the said period, the posts
of Superintendent in the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum were advertised by the respondents
therein and petitioner therein applied through proper
channel and was selected vide appointment order dated
20.12.2000 and he joined on 05.01.2001 after he was
relieved from the services of the said Corporation. He
joined the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
on 05.01.2001 and superannuated on 30.11.2011, however,
his earlier service rendered from 01.11.1975 till 04.01.2001
was not counted as qualifying service for computing the
pensionary benefits. The said claim was accepted by this
Court vide judgment dated 05.02.2019 while relying upon
various earlier orders passed by this Court in various other
writ petitions. The said judgment has been followed in
Sham Lal (supra) and the same reads as under: -
“1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the
orders dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure P-5) and
03.02.2020 (Annexure P-7) respectively by which the
respondents have declined to grant the benefit of
service rendered by the petitioner with the Punjab
Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance
Corporation, after the petitioner retired from service
working on a pensionable post with the Government
of Punjab.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the relief which is being claimed by the petitioner
has already been granted by this Court to another
similarly situated employee, who had filed CWP No.
2722 of 2013 titled as Yash Pal Singh Rana Vs. The
State of Punjab and others, decided on 05.02.2019 ,
which judgment has already attained finality and
relief has already been given to Yash Pal Singh
Rana.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has not
been able to dispute the fact that in Yash Pal Singh
Rana’s case (supra) also, the service rendered in the
Corporation wherein the petitioner of that case was
working, was directed to be taken into account for
computing the pensionary benefits. No differentiating
factor in the case of the petitioner and that of Yash
Pal Singh Rana’s case (supra) has been proved and
so as not to appeal the said decision in the case of
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 14
petitioner herein. Hence, the present petition is also
allowed in the same terms as Yash Pal Singh Rana’s
case (supra) except that the rate of interest will be
6% per annum and not 9% as claimed.”
xx xx xx xx
15. The judgment dated 28.08.2024 in Sham Lal’s case
(supra) has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court
in LPA-3328 of 2024 – State of Punjab and another v.
Sham Lal and another decided on 20.12.2024 . The
relevant portion from the said judgment reads as under: -
“4. Learned Single Bench noted that relief
claimed by respondent/writ-petitioner had been
granted to another similarly situated employee i.e.,
the petitioner in CWP No. 2722 of 2013, titled
‘Yashpal Singh Rana Vs. State of Punjab and
others’, decided on 05.02.2019' . It was concluded
that respondents were not able to distinguish the
cause of writ petitioner from that of Yash Pal Singh
Rana. Writ petition was accordingly allowed in the
same terms with the difference that interest at the
rate of 6% per annum instead of 9% was ordered.
5. Aggrieved therefrom, present appeal has been
filed.
6. Learned counsel for appellants submits that
Instructions dated 25.04.2017 are categoric,
therefore directions by learned Single Bench are
unjustified. Appointment of writ-petitioner on the
post of Section Officer had to be treated as fresh
appointment and he was not entitled to counting of
his service for the purpose of pension with the
respondent-Corporation as qualifying service for the
purpose of pension. It is thus prayed that present
appeal be allowed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for appellants
and have perused the file carefully with his able
assistance, however, we do not find any ground to
cause interference in this matter.
8. It is to be noted that the import and effect of
Instructions dated 25.04.2017 have already been
considered by this Court in LPA No. 2445 of 2024,
titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Om Parkash and
others with the appeal filed by State of Punjab being
dismissed. In the present case also, writ-petitioner had
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 15
been appointed through proper channel while in
service. His representation for counting his service
with the respondent-Corporation as qualifying service
for the purpose of pension was duly submitted.
9. It is to be noted, at this stage that in a number of
writ petitions involving similar controversy, respondent
has already granted relief to the employees therein and
counted the service rendered by them with the
Corporations which had not been wound up, for the
purpose of pension. This fact is not denied by learned
counsel for appellants.
10. Learned counsel for appellants is unable to
point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the
impugned order dated 28.08.2024, passed by learned
Single Bench, which calls for interference by this
Court.”
xx xx xx xx”
12. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab School
Education Board and another Vs. Satname Singh and others : 2026
INSC 965 has held that employees working on contract/ad-hoc/daily-
wage basis prior to regularization are entitled to have their pre-
regularization service counted as qualifying service for pension purpose.
The relevant paras of the said judgment read thus :-
“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:-
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 16
(…)
(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
abovementioned 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.
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
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 17
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
cutoff 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”.
13. Once the Rule mandates for counting of all services
rendered by an employee prior to his regularization, the action of the
respondents in not counting the work-charged service rendered by the
husband of the petitioner, is totally illegal, arbitrary and in violation of
the said Rules.
14. In view of the above, the work-charged service rendered by
the husband of the petitioner from 07.07.1986 to 08.07.1999 is liable to
be counted towards his pensionary benefits. Consequently, the
impugned order dated 10.07.2020 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed
and the respondent-Corporation is directed to count the work-charged
service rendered by the husband of the petitioner from 07.07.1986 to
08.07.1999 for the grant of pensionary benefits. The necessary
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-26921-2021 18
calculations shall be made and the revised family pension shall be
released to the petitioner within a period of four months along with
arrears along with interest @ 7% per annum and the employer’s
contribution in PF & FPF account, which was required to be deposited
by the husband of the petitioner, shall be deducted/adjusted from the
arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
15. Disposed of in the above terms.
08.09.2026 ( NAMIT KUMAR )
kothiyal
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.09.14 17:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document