Bimla Devi And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

1
CWP-37338 of 2026


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH


111 CWP-37338-2026

Date of Decision: 13.11.2026




Bimla Devi and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR


Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Aakash Singla, Addl. AG Haryana-State.




HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus , directing the respondents to count the
part-time/daily-wage services of the petitioners rendered prior to
regularization for the purpose of pension and to grant them the benefits of
the Old Pension Scheme, in view of the order dated 05.10.2026 passed in
CWP-32960-2026, titled Ajit Singh and others v. State of Haryana and
others , along with arrears and interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia , contends that the
petitioners are serving and retired Class-IV employees of the School
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 12:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
CWP-37338 of 2026


Education Department, Haryana. Petitioner No.5 is the widow/family
pensioner of a deceased Class-IV employee. The petitioners and the
deceased husband of petitioner No.5 were initially appointed on part-time
basis in different Government schools in District Hisar between the years
1990 and 2002, against posts such as Peon, Mali, Chowkidar and Sweeper,
on wages fixed by the concerned Deputy Commissioner from time to time.
Their services were subsequently regularized against sanctioned posts
between the years 2014 and 2020. The particulars of their initial
appointment and subsequent regularization, as reflected in the tabular
statement forming part of the writ petition, are reproduced hereunder:-
Sr. Date of joining as part- Date of
Name of the petitioner
No. time worker regularization
1. Bimla Devi w/o Satbir Singh 11.10.2002 04.05.2020
2. Kalawati Devi w/o Rajpal 24.09.2002 25.08.2014
3. Bimla Devi w/o Pirthi Singh 21.08.1990 14.08.2014
4. Murti Devi w/o Jile Singh 01.09.2002 08.09.2014
Kavita w/o Suraj Bhan (family
5. 18.09.2002 18.09.2017
pensioner)

The documents relating to their initial engagement and
regularization are annexed as Annexures P-1 to P-5. The petitioners contend
that although they were initially engaged on part-time basis, they have
continued to render service without any break and their services were
subsequently regularized. However, the respondents have not counted the
aforesaid part-time service as qualifying service for the purpose of pension
and other retiral benefits.
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
2026.11.13 12:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
CWP-37338 of 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 have 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 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
2026.11.13 12:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
CWP-37338 of 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
2026.11.13 12:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
CWP-37338 of 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.
Pursuant to the direction of the State Government dated
30.05.2008, the Chief Engineer had directed that GPF
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 12:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
CWP-37338 of 2026


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
identical relief by the High Court itself and to hold the
respondents, ineligible now would be prima facie
discriminatory.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 12:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
CWP-37338 of 2026


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 writ 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
2026.11.13 12:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
CWP-37338 of 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

13.11.2026
Puneet Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 12:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document