Work-charged service preceding regularization must be counted for pensionary benefits.

The petitioner’s deceased husband, Dharam Chand, was engaged as a daily-wage worker on 27.10.1981, became a work-charged employee on 07.07.1986, and continued in that capacity until 08.07.1999.

His services were regularized from 09.07.1999, and he retired on 29.02.2012.

Pensionary benefits were calculated only from the date of regularization, excluding his work-charged service.

His representation seeking recognition of the earlier service was rejected by the respondents on 10.07.2020.

He subsequently died on 29.05.2021, after which his widow pursued the proceedings.

During arguments, the petitioner restricted the claim to counting work-charged service from 07.07.1986 to 08.07.1999 and abandoned the claim concerning daily-wage service.

Whether the work-charged service rendered by the petitioner’s husband from 07.07.1986 to 08.07.1999, followed by regularization, was liable to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

Whether the employer’s contribution to the PF and FPF, together with applicable interest, could be recovered by adjustment from the arrears of pensionary benefits rather than by requiring separate payment.

Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, recognizes service rendered in an establishment as qualifying service, subject to specified exclusions; casual or daily-rated service is expressly excluded, but work-charged service followed by regularization is protected by the principle laid down in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988 (5) SLR 27, where the exclusion of work-charged service from qualifying service was held arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

The Court also relied on Dharvinder Paul Sehgal v. State of Punjab, 2025 NCPHHC 163455, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Punjab School Education Board v. Satname Singh, 2026 INSC 965, for the principle that continuous pre-regularization service, including contract, ad hoc, daily-wage or analogous service, should generally be counted for retiral and pensionary benefits after regularization, and that artificial or administrative breaks should be ignored.

Pension was treated as deferred wages and a social-welfare measure payable for past service, not as a bounty.

The Court found it undisputed that Dharam Chand had rendered uninterrupted work-charged service from 07.07.1986 until his regularization on 09.07.1999 and had thereafter completed regular pensionable service until retirement.

Applying Kesar Chand and the later authorities, the Court held that an employee who is ultimately regularized cannot be denied pensionary credit for service rendered in a work-charged establishment merely because of the technical character of the initial appointment.

The respondents’ objection that the employer’s PF and FPF contribution had not been deposited did not defeat the substantive pension claim; the amount could be recovered by adjustment from the pension arrears, with applicable interest.

It quashed the order dated 10.07.2020 and directed PSPCL to count Dharam Chand’s work-charged service from 07.07.1986 to 08.07.1999 for pensionary purposes.

The respondents were directed to recalculate and release the petitioner’s revised family pension and arrears within four months, with interest at 7% per annum.

The employer’s PF and FPF contribution was directed to be deducted or adjusted from the pension arrears, along with interest at 12% per annum.