Haryana School Workers’ Continuous Part-Time Service Before Regularisation Counts Toward Old Pension, P&H HC Says, Subject To Verification

The petitioners were serving or retired Class-IV employees of Haryana’s School Education Department.

They had initially been engaged on a part-time basis between 1982 and 2003 and were later regularized, mostly between 2006 and 2021, under the applicable regularization policy.

They sought counting of their pre-regularization service for pension and other retiral benefits under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), and consequential relief including correction of their pension arrangements.

The State disputed that the dates and supporting particulars of each petitioner’s engagement had been adequately established, but accepted that the benefit could be granted if the facts were verified.

The Court applied the principle that continuous pre-regularization service, followed by regularization, is generally to be counted as qualifying service for pension and retiral benefits.

It relied on Kesar Chand v. State of Haryana, Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab, Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana, and the decisions in Rajesh Kumar, Bimla Devi, Jagdish and Om Prakash, as cited in the judgment.

It also relied on Punjab School Education Board v. Satnam Singh, Civil Appeal No. 6865 of 2022, 2026 INSC 965, which held that pre-regularization contract, ad hoc or daily-wage service may count as qualifying service, and that artificial or administrative breaks may be disregarded where the service is otherwise continuous.

The petitioners invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016; the operative relief was made subject to verification of their service particulars.

The Court found from the record that the petitioners had been engaged on part-time, daily-wage or ad hoc bases and were subsequently regularized under the applicable policy.

Applying the cited authorities, it held that the respondents could not exclude continuous pre-regularization service when calculating qualifying service for pension.

As the State did not controvert the governing legal position, but sought verification of individual dates and particulars, the Court made the OPS relief conditional on that verification.

The respondents were directed to count each petitioner’s service from initial engagement through regularization and subsequent regular service as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits.

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

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