Sunil Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
1
CWP-37234 & 37257 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
122+125 (2 cases)
Date of Decision: 12.11.2026
1. CWP-37234-2026
Ramkishan and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents
2. CWP-37257-2026
Sunil Kumar and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Arvind Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP-37234-2026.
Mr. Sandeep Antehri and Ms. Mamta Saini, Advocates for the
petitioners in CWP-37257-2026.
Mr. Aakash Singla, Addl. AG Haryana-State.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)
1. Both the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing, as the
controversy involved in both the cases is identical and raises common
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2
CWP-37234 & 37257 of 2026
questions of fact and law. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts
are being extracted from CWP-37234-2026.
2. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction, particularly in the nature of certiorari , for quashing the impugned
action of the respondent department in not counting the past service
rendered by the petitioners on part-time basis for the purpose of grant of
pension and other consequential benefits under the Old Pension Scheme,
being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India, as well as contrary to the law laid down by this
Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A further writ in the nature of
mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to count the whole
service of the petitioners, including their continuous service rendered on
part-time basis before regularization, for the purpose of grant of pension and
other consequential benefits under the Old Pension Scheme and to treat the
petitioners as entitled to pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme
in terms of the judgment dated 01.03.2019 passed in CWP No.1048 of 2016,
Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana and others , the appeal against which was
dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide judgment dated 26.07.2024
passed in LPA No.1892 of 2019 (Annexure P-12), and SLP Nos.21427-
21435 of 2024 filed by the State of Haryana were also dismissed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-13). The
petitioners have further sought for directing the respondents to open General
Provident Fund (GPF) accounts of the petitioners instead of New Pension
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
3
CWP-37234 & 37257 of 2026
Scheme accounts, i.e. PRAN accounts under the New Pension Scheme, and
to release pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG), commuted
amount of pension and other retirement benefits, along with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum, to the retired petitioners in their GPF accounts under
the statutory provisions of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
2016, instead of the New Pension Scheme, particularly when the petitioners
who have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation were
already in service prior to the notification introducing the New Pension
Scheme dated 28.10.2005.
3. The petitioners are serving and retired Class-IV employees of
the School Education Department, Haryana. They were initially appointed
on part-time basis in different Government schools in the State of Haryana
between the years 1982 and 2003, against posts such as Sweeper, Peon,
Mali, Chowkidar and Water Carrier, on wages fixed by the concerned
Deputy Commissioner from time to time. Their services were subsequently
regularized against sanctioned posts between the years 2006 and 2021,
pursuant to the policy dated 11.11.2003 (Annexure P-2). The particulars of
their initial appointment and subsequent regularization, as reflected in the
tabular statement forming part of the writ petition, are reproduced
hereunder:-
Date of joining as part- Date of
Sr. No. Name of employee
time employee regularization
Gurgaon
1 Ramkishan 01.01.1986 27.08.2014
2 Roshni 1984 22.08.2014
3 Sunder Singh 28.02.2001 21.08.2014
4 Raj Singh 05.07.1995 21.08.2014
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
4
CWP-37234 & 37257 of 2026
5 Shyam Singh 05.07.1995 25.08.2014
6 Anand Kumar 07.12.2002 26.11.2014
7 Daya Chand 05.07.1995 23.05.2014
8 Mukesh Kumar 14.08.2001 29.11.2014
9 Beena 05.11.1993 25.08.2014
10 Raj Rani 05.07.1995 22.08.2014
11 Shankuntla 31.08.1995 22.08.2014
12 Chandro 31.08.1995 25.08.2014
13 Rajender Kumar 05.07.1995 25.08.2014
14 Sona Devi 31.08.1995 23.08.2014
15 Suresh Kumar 31.01.1994 25.08.2014
16 Rupan 05.07.1995 25.08.2014
17 Maha Bir 31.08.1995 23.08.2014
18 Mahipal 06.09.1995 25.08.2014
19 Anita 19.09.1994 25.08.2014
20 Tejpal 30.09.1995 25.08.2014
21 Rameshwari 07.08.1995 25.08.2014
22 Kaushlya 26.09.1995 22.08.2014
23 Vidyawati 06.07.1995 23.08.2014
24 Sushila 02.03.1991 01.12.2014
25 Sanjay Kumar 11.07.2001 26.08.2014
26 Prem 05.08.1995 02.12.2014
27 Naresh Kumar 09.01.1989 25.08.2014
28 Rajwanti 22.08.2001 04.09.2014
29 Naresh 01.03.1995 12.09.2014
30 Rajwati 05.07.1995 25.08.2014
31 Kewal Singh 04.09.2000 25.08.2014
32 Hoshiar Singh 05.07.1995 09.09.2014
33 Jagdish Chander 15.05.1990 28.08.2014
34 Rakesh Kumar 15.01.1996 25.08.2014
35 Gyanwati 05.07.1995 04.11.2015
36 Saneh Lata 14.08.2001 25.08.2014
37 Maharam 05.07.1995 27.08.2014
38 Kaushalya 01.05.1995 31.08.2014
39 Bimla Devi 1986 27.08.2014
40 Balwant Singh 1992 22.08.2014
41 Dharambir 02.11.1985 22.08.2014
Sakuntla Devi through LR
42
18.07.1983 25.08.2014
Bharm Dutt
43 Muni Ram 01.04.1991 02.12.2014
44 Vijay Singh 21.08.1995 22.08.2014
45 Guddi 02.12.1989 22.08.2014
46 Ratni 02.08.1984 02.12.2014
47 Maya Devi 29.01.2003 29.07.2015
48 Barfi 20.11.1998 22.08.2014
49 Sushila 05.03.1997 22.08.2014
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
5
CWP-37234 & 37257 of 2026
50 Shakuntla 01.04.1992 25.08.2014
51 Sugna 01.03.1982 01.09.2014
52 Sushila 20.07.2000 23.08.2014
Mewat
53 Mangal Singh 02.09.1995 11.09.2014
54 Rohtas 26.09.1995 09.09.2014
Jagan Devi through LR
55
26.09.1995 11.09.2014
Mangal Singh
56 Rajni 29.10.1998 17.10.2017
57 Ami Chand 06.09.1995 29.09.2014
58 Girraj 26.09.1995 11.05.2014
59 Chat Ram 10.12.1998 12.04.2018
60 Jaggi 27.10.1998 23.10.2017
61 Balbir 27.10.1998 29.09.2017
62 Rohtas 26.09.1995 11.09.2014
63 Shanti Devi 06.12.1996 03.10.2017
64 Ram Chand 16.10.1995 12.09.2014
65 Mukti Devi 02.12.2002 29.08.2017
66 Gopi Chand 18.05.2001 13.10.2017
67 Phoolpati 1995 28.05.2019
Rewari
68 Phool Singh 10.12.1992 02.09.2014
69 Gugan Singh 30.01.1990 Aug-2014
70 Babli 18.01.1992 Aug-2014
71 Hansraj 01.01.1994 02.09.2014
72 Dalbir Singh 06.10.1988 10.03.2006
73 Santra 01.03.1988 14.03.2006
74 Babu Lal 09.11.1987 08.03.2006
75 Subhash 12.11.1984 18.03.2006
76 Ramchander 11.10.1988 08.03.2006
Hisar
77 Parhlad Singh 09.11.2001 14.08.2014
78 Roshni 11.11.2002 01.05.2020
Krishan Kumar through LR
79
24.10.2002 21.05.2018
Jeeto Devi
80 Om Pati 16.10.2002 20.04.2020
81 Billo 16.10.2002 20.03.2020
Sonipat
82 Kelash Singh 20.07.2001 01.01.2021
83 Lichhmi Devi 10.05.1991 Aug-2014
84 Jai Kanwar 10.11.1993 23.05.2012
85 Satish 21.12.1994 29.08.2014
86 Jitender 01.04.2001 04.01.2021
Jind
87 Sube Singh 30.04.2003 07.08.2014
88 Rai Sahab 30.03.2001 16.02.2018
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
6
CWP-37234 & 37257 of 2026
Kaithal
89 Nirmala Devi 01.03.1990 02.02.2006
90 Roshan Lal 06.07.1998 10.05.2013
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.
4. Learned counsel relies upon Kesar Chand v. State of Haryana
and others, 1988 (2) PLR 223 ; Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and others,
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.
5. 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
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
7
CWP-37234 & 37257 of 2026
mentioned in the present petition remain undisputed, the petitioners would
be granted the benefit of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) upon verification.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file with their able assistance.
7. 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.
8. The issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra . This
Court, in Jeewan Lata (supra) , Rajesh Kumar (supra) , Bimla Devi v.
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.
9. 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
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
8
CWP-37234 & 37257 of 2026
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."
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.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
9
CWP-37234 & 37257 of 2026
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 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.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
10
CWP-37234 & 37257 of 2026
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.
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 petitioners' continuous pre-regularization service while
determining qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
11. Accordingly, both the present petitions are allowed. The
respondents are directed to count the petitioners' service from the date of
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
11
CWP-37234 & 37257 of 2026
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 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.
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.
15. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
12.11.2026
Puneet Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document