Continuous pre-regularization part-time or daily-wage service counts as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

Sheelwati was appointed as a Water Carrier on part-time daily-wage basis on 07.07.1998 and was regularized on 28.08.2014; she retired on 30.04.2026.

In the connected petition, Jasbir Singh and the other petitioner were appointed as Peons on part-time basis on 27.09.2002 and 10.10.2002, respectively, and were regularized on 21.08.2014 and 20.08.2014.

The petitioners claimed that their uninterrupted pre-regularization service, followed by regular service, was required to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits and that they were consequently entitled to the Old Pension Scheme/GPF Scheme.

The State did not dispute the relevant appointment and regularization dates and agreed to grant the benefit subject to verification of the factual particulars.

1. Whether continuous part-time/daily-wage service rendered before regularization is liable to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary and other retiral benefits.

2. Whether, upon counting such pre-regularization service, the petitioners are entitled to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme/GPF Scheme, subject to verification of their service particulars.

The Court applied the principle that continuous part-time, daily-wage, ad hoc, temporary or contractual service rendered before regularization, when followed by regular service, must be counted as qualifying service for pension and retiral benefits.

It relied 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; Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP-12826-2017, decided on 22.12.2025; and Om Prakash v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-20263-2024, decided on 09.07.2026.

The Court also relied on Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, CWP-626-2015, affirmed in LPA-426-2016, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Punjab School Education Board and another v. Satnam Singh and others, Civil Appeal No. 6865 of 2022, 2026 INSC 965, which held that pre-regularization contract/ad hoc/daily-wage service may constitute qualifying service where the employee was subsequently regularized.

Artificial or administrative breaks in otherwise continuous service are to be ignored, and pension cannot be denied on technicalities where long service was ultimately regularized.

The petitioners’ initial appointments preceded the relevant pension-scheme cut-off and were followed by regularization under the applicable regularization policy.

Since the State did not controvert the continuity or material particulars of their service, the Court applied the settled rule that pre-regularization service cannot be excluded merely because it was rendered on a part-time or daily-wage basis.

The Court accordingly directed that service from the dates of initial engagement until regularization, together with subsequent regular service, be treated as qualifying service for pensionary purposes.

Entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme was made subject to verification of the dates and factual particulars of appointment and regularization.

The respondents were directed to count the petitioners’ part-time/daily-wage/ad hoc service from their initial engagement until regularization, followed by regular service, for pension and other retiral benefits.

Subject to verification, the petitioners were held entitled to the Old Pension Scheme/GPF Scheme; the respondents were directed to re-fix their pensionary and retiral benefits and release consequential benefits within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Amounts already contributed or paid under the New Pension Scheme were to be adjusted in accordance with law.