Sunita Devi And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

138+144+149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) CWP-36839-2026
Date of decision: 05.11.2026
Ramphal and others ....Petitioners

Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
2) CWP-36994-2026
Rakesh and others ....Petitioners

Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
3) CWP-36978-2026
Sunita Devi and others ....Petitioners

Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Nikhil Lather, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP-36839-2026).
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate and
Mr. Paramjit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-36994-2026 &
CWP-36978-2026).
Mr. Aakash Singla, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. With the consent of parties, this common order shall dispose of the
NEHA
2026.11.05 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36839-2026;
CWP-36994-2026 &
CWP-36978-2026 -2-
aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix.
However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-36839-2026.
2. The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus
directing the respondents to treat the petitioners as governed by the
Old Pension Scheme i.e. Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II (now the
Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016) and the GPF Scheme and to
count the entire service rendered by the petitioners on part
time/contractual/temporary basis w.e.f. their respective dates of initial
appointment prior to 28.10.2005 till their regularization as qualifying service
for pension and all retiral benefits. Further, directing the respondents to
discontinue the deductions under the Haryana New Pension Scheme, 2008 from
the salary of the petitioners (other than petitioner No.9) to open their GPF
accounts and to transfer/adjust the contributions made under the NPS in
accordance with law.
inter alia
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
petitioners were initially appointed on a part-time basis against various Class-
IV posts in District Bhiwani during the years 2002–2003, prior to the issuance
of notification dated 28.10.2005, whereby, the New Pension Scheme was made
applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006. He further submits that after rendering prolonged
and continuous service, the petitioners' services were regularized after
01.01.2006 as discernible from the regularization orders issued between 2019
and 2023 (Annexures P-1 to P-4).
NEHA
2026.11.05 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36839-2026;
CWP-36994-2026 &
CWP-36978-2026 -3-
3.1. The petitioners, their designations, palce of posting, dates of initial
engagement and dates of regularization are as under:-
Sr. Name of Designation and place of Date of initial Date of
No. Petitioner posting engagement regularizatio
n
1 Ramphal Peon, SSSS GSSS 13.02.2003 10.09.2019
Kharkhari (535)
2 Jawahar Lal Peon, Government Middle 03.05.2002 10.09.2019
School, Bardu Mugal
3 Balbir Singh Peon, Government Senior
Secondary School, Rupana
Siwani
13.05.2002 20.02.2003
4 Surender Singh Peon, Ch. Ramjas
Government Senior
Secondary School, Budhera,
Loharu
08.05.2002 10.09.2019
5 Krishna Sweeper, Government High 28.11.1997 28.08.2019
School, Sherla (Behal)
6 Sumer Singh Peon, Government Girls
Senior Secondary School,
Dhighawa Jattan
27.10.1997 21.04.2017
7 Jai Parkash Peon, Government Middle 10.05.2002 10.09.2019
School, Allaudinpur
8 Anita Devi Peon, SSSGMS Gothra 06.07.2001 10.09.2019
9 Sarbati Retired as Sweeper from
Veer Shahid Shri Hawa
Singh Government Senior
Secondary School, Sirsi
28.11.1997 28.08.2019
10 Vinod Kumar Peon, Government Middle 05.08.2000 20.02.2023
School, Kural Bass
11 Bhim Singh Peon, Government Senior 10.10.1997 20.08.2014
Secondary School, Singhani
12 Jokhi Ram Chowkidar, Government 03.05.2002 10.09.2019
High School, Jhumpa Kalan
13 Ramesh Kumar Retired as Chowkidar from
Government High School,
Mansar Bass
03.08.1998 24.02.2023
14 Ram Niwas Peon, Veer Shaheed 27.08.2002 10.09.2019
Banwari Lal GSSS Kurla
15
Shri Krishan Veer Shaheed Nayak
Rameshwar Government
High School Serla
20.08.2001 10.09.2019
NEHA
2026.11.05 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36839-2026;
CWP-36994-2026 &
CWP-36978-2026 -4-
3.2. Learned counsel relies upon 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 , to contend 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.
4. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that the petitioners were
initially appointed on part-time/daily wage/ ad hoc basis and were regularized
after 01.01.2006 . 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 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 record
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 was
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 vs. Punjab
State Power Corporation Limited and others, (CWP-1672-2026), decided on
NEHA
2026.11.05 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36839-2026;
CWP-36994-2026 &
CWP-36978-2026 -5-
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.
8. 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.
(...)
NEHA
2026.11.05 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36839-2026;
CWP-36994-2026 &
CWP-36978-2026 -6-
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
NEHA
2026.11.05 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36839-2026;
CWP-36994-2026 &
CWP-36978-2026 -7-
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 identical relief by the
High Court itself and to hold the respondents, ineligible now
would be prima facie discriminatory.
NEHA
2026.11.05 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36839-2026;
CWP-36994-2026 &
CWP-36978-2026 -8-
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 aforementioned all the petitions are allowed. The
respondents are directed to count the petitioners’ service from the date of initial
ad hoc
engagement on part-time/daily wage/ 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.
NEHA
2026.11.05 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36839-2026;
CWP-36994-2026 &
CWP-36978-2026 -9-
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.
14. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
05.11.2026
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
NEHA
2026.11.05 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document