Continuous part-time service preceding regularization counts as qualifying service for pension and Old Pension Scheme benefits.

The petitioner was appointed as a part-time Water Carrier on 07.11.2000 and his services were regularized on 07.08.2014 under the Haryana regularization policy of 11.11.2003.

He claimed that his pre-regularization part-time service should be counted as qualifying service for pension and that he should receive the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), since his service commenced before 01.01.2006.

He also challenged the rejection of his claim for ante-dated regularization under the 3% horizontal reservation applicable to persons with disabilities, stating that he was 70% physically disabled.

His claim was rejected by order dated 09.10.2019.

During the pendency of the writ petition, he retired on 31.03.2026, with no pending disciplinary proceedings.

Whether the petitioner’s part-time service from 07.11.2000 until his regularization on 07.08.2014 could be counted as qualifying service for pensionary and retiral benefits.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the Old Pension Scheme on account of his initial appointment before 01.01.2006 and subsequent regularization.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to ante-dated regularization against the 3% reservation for persons with disabilities under the Government Instructions dated 17/19.04.2017 and clarification dated 23.01.2018.

The Court applied Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, as applicable in Haryana, concerning the counting of service as qualifying service for pension.

It relied on Kesar Chand v. State of Haryana, 1988 (2) PLR 223, and Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, 2012 (3) SCT 362, for the principle that qualifying pre-regularization service may be counted for pension.

It further followed Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, CWP-626-2015, affirmed in LPA-426-2016, which held that long-term part-time/work-charged service followed by regularization could not be excluded from pensionary service.

The Court also relied on Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab, State of Haryana v. Jai Bhagwan, Rajesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, Bimla Devi v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Jagdish v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., and Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, which recognized that continuous part-time, daily-wage, contractual, or temporary service followed by regularization is liable to be counted as qualifying service for pension.

The governing principle was that the State, as a model employer, cannot engage an employee on a part-time basis for a prolonged period and subsequently deny pensionary benefits on a technical ground.

The Court found that the petitioner had continuously served as a part-time Water Carrier from 07.11.2000 until his regularization on 07.08.2014, and that the respondents had not established that his engagement was merely contingent or of a purely temporary nature.

Applying Rule 3.17-A and the cited precedents, the Court held that the character of the pre-regularization service could not defeat the petitioner’s pension claim where that service was followed by regular employment.

Since the petitioner entered service before 01.01.2006 and his past service was required to be counted, the Court concluded that he was entitled to OPS and corresponding pensionary benefits.

Although the petition also raised the issue of disability reservation and ante-dated regularization, the operative reasoning and relief were confined to counting past service and granting OPS.

The order dated 09.10.2019 rejecting the petitioner’s claim was quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to count the petitioner’s entire part-time service from 07.11.2000 until regularization on 07.08.2014, together with his subsequent regular service, as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits.

The petitioner was held entitled to the Old Pension Scheme; the respondents were directed to revise his pensionary benefits and release consequential benefits within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Any differential amount under the New Pension Scheme was directed to be adjusted.