Five Haryana School Staff To Get Old Pension Counting Part-Time Service, Subject To Verification: P&H HC

The petitioners, including one family pensioner, were initially engaged on part-time basis in Government schools in Haryana between 1990 and 2002 and were subsequently regularized between 2014 and 2020.

They sought to have their pre-regularization service counted as qualifying service for pension and to be granted the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

The State submitted that the relevant dates required verification, but accepted that past service was countable under the cited judgments if the petitioners’ factual particulars were verified.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that continuous pre-regularization part-time, daily-wage, ad hoc or temporary service, followed by regularization, is to be counted as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits.

It relied on Kesar Chand v. State of Haryana, 1988 (2) PLR 223; Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, 2012 (3) SCT 362; Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab, 2019 (4) SCT 271; Jai Bhagwan (2024 NC PHHC 095763); and other High Court decisions.

It also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Punjab School Education Board v. Satnam Singh, Civil Appeal No. 6865 of 2022, 2026 INSC 965, which treated pre-regularization contract, ad hoc or daily-wage service as qualifying service, subject to the applicable facts and law, and recognized the relevance of continuity of service and the governing pension provisions.

The Court further noted the constitutional jurisdiction invoked under Articles 226 and 227.

The record showed that the petitioners had initially been engaged on a part-time basis and were later regularized under the applicable regularization policy.

Applying the settled line of authority, including Satnam Singh, the Court held that the respondents could not exclude continuous pre-regularization service when calculating qualifying service for pension.

Although the State disputed whether the dates were adequately proved, it did not controvert the governing legal principle; the Court therefore made relief subject to verification of the petitioners’ dates and factual particulars.

The respondents were directed to count each petitioner’s service from initial part-time, daily-wage or ad hoc engagement through regularization and subsequent regular service as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits.

Subject to verification, the petitioners were held entitled to OPS benefits, with pensionary and retiral benefits to be re-fixed and released within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Any amount already contributed or paid under the New Pension Scheme was to be adjusted in accordance with law.