01Facts
The petitioner was engaged as a part-time Sweeper in 1988 and was later regularized with effect from 04.05.2006.
pp. 1–5 · ¶ 2–5She retired on superannuation on 30.11.2018.
pp. 1–5 · ¶ 2–5Although she initially sought regularization from the date her junior was regularized, she ultimately confined her claim to pension under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), seeking to have her pre-regularization service counted as qualifying service.
pp. 1–5 · ¶ 2–5The State disputed her earlier eligibility for regularization but stated that OPS benefits could be granted following verification if the relevant facts were established.
pp. 1–5 · ¶ 2–502Issues
i.Whether the petitioner’s service rendered before regularization, followed by regular service, must be counted as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits.
p. 5 · ¶ 8 · p. 9 · ¶ 10ii.Whether, on counting that service, the petitioner is entitled to OPS benefits, subject to verification of her service particulars.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 4–5 · p. 10 · ¶ 1203Law Applied
Rule 32 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 prescribes ten years of qualifying service for monthly pension.
p. 2 · ¶ 2The Court relied on Kesar Chand v. State of Haryana, Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab, Jai Bhagwan, Rajesh Kumar, and other cited decisions for the principle that continuous part-time, daily-wage, ad hoc, or temporary service preceding regularization may be counted as qualifying service when followed by regular service.
pp. 4–6 · ¶ 4, 8–9It also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Punjab School Education Board v. Satnam Singh, which affirmed that pre-regularization service can count toward pension and that artificial or administrative breaks may be disregarded in appropriate circumstances.
pp. 6–9 · ¶ 904Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner had initially served on a part-time, daily-wage, or ad hoc basis and was subsequently regularized.
p. 5 · ¶ 7Applying the settled principle that continuous pre-regularization service followed by regular service is countable for pension, the Court held that the respondents could not exclude her earlier service when calculating qualifying service.
pp. 5–9 · ¶ 8–10It treated the petitioner’s entitlement to OPS as subject to verification of the dates and factual particulars of her engagement and regularization.
p. 10 · ¶ 1205Holding
The petition was allowed.
p. 10 · ¶ 11–13The respondents were directed to count the petitioner’s service from her initial engagement through regularization, together with her subsequent regular service, as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits.
p. 10 · ¶ 11–13Subject to verification, she is entitled to OPS, and the respondents must re-fix and release the consequential benefits within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.
p. 10 · ¶ 11–13Any amount already contributed or paid under the New Pension Scheme is to be adjusted in accordance with law.
p. 10 · ¶ 11–13Original Court PDF
Dayal KaurvsState Of Haryana And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
