Haryana HC Counts Pre-Regularisation Service For School Workers Hired Before NPS, Grants Old Pension Subject To Verification

The petitioners had initially been engaged in Haryana government schools on part-time, daily-wage or ad hoc terms between 1997 and 2003. Their services were subsequently regularized, mostly between 2014 and 2023; two petitioners had retired after regularization.

They sought recognition of their pre-regularization service as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits, coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), and related relief concerning NPS deductions and GPF accounts.

The State did not dispute that the prior service was required to be considered under the cited judgments, subject to verification of the petitioners’ particulars.

The Court applied the applicable pension framework under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, now the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, and considered the transition to the New Pension Scheme (NPS), notified on 28.10.2005 and applicable from 01.01.2006.

It relied on Kesar Chand v. State of Haryana, Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab, Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana, Rajesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, and other decisions for the principle that qualifying pre-regularization part-time, daily-wage, ad hoc or temporary service, followed by regular service, is to be counted for pensionary benefits.

It also relied on Punjab School Education Board v. Satnam Singh, Civil Appeal No. 6865 of 2022, 2026 INSC 965, which held, in the context of the applicable pension regulations, that qualifying pre-regularization service may be counted for retiral benefits and that artificial or administrative breaks may be disregarded where the service is otherwise continuous.

The governing principle was that continuous pre-regularization service cannot be excluded from qualifying service merely because the employee was regularized later.

The Court found that the petitioners had been engaged before the NPS commencement date and were subsequently regularized under the applicable regularization policies.

Applying the cited authorities, it held that their pre-regularization service could not be excluded when determining qualifying service for pension.

The State’s position that the past service should be counted, subject to verification, further supported granting relief on that basis.

The Court therefore directed that the petitioners’ service from initial engagement through regularization and thereafter be counted, while making OPS entitlement and consequential re-fixation subject to verification of their dates and factual particulars.

It directed the respondents to count each petitioner’s service from initial engagement through regularization, followed by regular service, as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits.

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

Amounts already contributed or paid under NPS are to be adjusted in accordance with law.