AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
CM-15892-CII-2025
Prayer in the instant application filed under Section 151 of CPC is for placing on record the document as Annexure A-1.
Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. The Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.
CWP-420-2020 (O&M)
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 09.10.2019 (Annexure P-14), whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services w.e.f. 11.11.2003 was rejected while deciding the legal notice dated 15.04.2018 (Annexure P-11). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to calculate 3% posts of the total number of Class IV posts in the District from 01.01.1996 reserved for persons with disabilities in view of the orders dated 17/19.04.2017 (Annexure P-9) and Clarification dated 23.01.2018 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to fill up 3% posts of total Class IV posts amongst persons with disabilities by regularizing their services in view of condition 13 of regularization policy dated 11.11.2003 (Annexure P-3), as no future recruitment against vacant regular Class IV posts could be made from the open market till the common seniority list is fully exhausted. Additionally, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to allow him the benefit of pension under the Old Pension Scheme available under the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II (applicable to Haryana), as he had joined as a Part-time Water Carrier on 07.11.2000 i.e. prior to 01.01.2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as part-time Water Carrier on 07.11.2000 and his services were regularized on 07.08.2014, as discernible from Annexure P-5. As such, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of OPS under the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II (as applicable to the State of Haryana). He further submits that during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner had retired on 31.03.2026 and on the eve of his retirement, there was no pending disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent/authorities have failed to consider the claim of the petitioner for ante-dated regularization in view of the Government Instructions dated 17/19.04.2017 (Annexure P-9) and the clarification dated 23.01.2018 (Annexure P-10), which provide for 3% horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities on the total number of posts in the cadre strength w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The petitioner, being 70% physically handicapped, is entitled to be considered under this reserved category.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Haryana and others, 1988 (2) PLR 223 as well as the Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal vs. The State of Punjab and others, 2012 (3) SCT 362 and argued that the past daily wage service rendered by an employee is required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Jeewan Lata vs State of Punjab and others, 2019(4) SCT 271, and submits that continuous part-time service followed by regularization shall be counted as qualifying service for pension and therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is contrary to the settled law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Jai Bhagwan, 2024 NCPHHC 095763, wherein the part-time employees subsequent to their regularization were granted the benefit of counting of past service as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. In support of the claim of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon another judgment of this Court passed in CWP-12826-2017 titled as Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 22.12.2025 along with a bunch of petitions.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as he was a part-time Water Carrier and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of the judgment rendered in Jai Bhagwan (supra) has kept the question of law open. He further submits that the provisions contained in the policy regarding 3% reservation for persons with disabilities are applicable only in the case of fresh appointment (direct recruitment) and promotion matters and the same are not applicable in the matter of regularization of services.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.
From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner was initially appointed on 07.11.2000 as a Water Carrier and on the basis of his part-time service and in terms of the regularization policy issued in the year 2003 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was regularized on 07.08.2014.
The law on this point is no longer res integra and the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Jeewan Lata’s case (supra), Rajesh Kumar’s case (supra) and CWP-1672-2026, titled as Bimla Devi vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, decided on 23.01.2026 and CWP-4590-2026, titled as Jagdish vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, decided on 16.02.2026, wherein it has been categorically held that part-time/daily wage service followed by regular service is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Consequently, the action of the respondents in denying pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioners by not counting the past service rendered by deceased employee on daily wage basis cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-626-2015, titled as Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana decided on 17.03.2015 wherein duration of services rendered by a sweeper on part-time, before regularization, was ordered to be counted towards pensionary benefits. The same was also upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-426-2016 titled as State of Haryana and others vs. Zile Singh decided on 18.03.2016.The relevant part is reproduced below:
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.3.2015 holding the respondent – employee entitled to the benefit of previous service rendered by him on work charge basis towards qualifying service as pension in terms of the Full Bench titled as Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab and others AIR 1988, P&H 265.
Learned counsel for the appellant while impugning the said judgment refers to Rule 3.17 A to contend that the respondent-employee was engaged on part time basis and would thus not be entitled to have this service counted for qualifying service. Rule 3.17 A is extracted hereinbelow:-
3.17-A (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 4.23 and other rules and except in the cases mentioned below, all service rendered on establishment, interrupted or continuous, shall count as qualifying service:-
(i)Service rendered in work charged establishment.
(ii)Service paid from contingencies:
Provided that after the 1st January, 1973 half of the service paid from contingencies will be allowed to count towards pension at the time of absorption in regular employment subject to the following conditions:-
(a)Service paid from contingencies should have been in a job involving whole-time employment (and not part time or for a portion of the day)
(b)Service paid from contingencies should have been in a type of work or job for which regular post could have been sanctioned e.g malis, chowkidars, khalasis etc.
(c)the service should have been one for which the payment is made either on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which though not analogous to the regular scale of pay should bear some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed by staff in regular establishment.
(d)the service paid from contingencies should have been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break.”
Apparently service rendered in work charge establishment is included but excluded if it is part time or for a portion of the day as is suggested by Rule 3.17 A(ii)(a).
We find that the employee was engaged on work charge basis in the year 1996 and his services were regularized on 24.5.2013 in terms of the regularization policy applied to him. There is nothing on record to suggest that employee's services were being paid from contingencies as this issue was never pleaded or raised before the writ Court. It is only for the first time that such a plea is raised before this Court in LPA which we shall not permit.
There is also nothing on record which would even remotely suggest that the service of the employee was engaged only for contingencies and if the long term of employment is to be seen it clearly defies such a stand of the respondents. If a person can be engaged from 1996 till 2013 it could hardly be visualized to be a contingency as the need evidently was permanent.”
Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court in Jai Bhagwan’s case (supra), has authoritatively settled the law. The Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the State against the judgment passed in CWP No.1048 of 2016, has held that part-time service rendered for a long period of time cannot be ignored for computing pensionary benefits. Further, it has been observed that the State, being a model employer, cannot exploit its citizens by engaging them on a part-time basis for decades and then deny them the fruits of their long service on a technical ground. The Division Bench of this Court has further held that the service rendered by the employee before regularization is to be counted as qualifying service.
Furthermore, in a similar controversy, this Court in CWP-20263-2024, titled as Om Prakash vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 09.07.2026, after examining a large number of cases, has also categorically held that past part-time service rendered prior to regularization is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and the petitioners therein were held entitled to Old Pension Scheme. This Court further, after analyzing the judgments in Kesar Chand’s case (supra), Zile Singh’s case (supra) and Jai Bhagwan’s case (supra), concluded that the service rendered by an employee on a part-time, contractual or temporary basis prior to their regularization must be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
In the present case, the petitioner was initially appointed on 07.11.2000 and his services were regularized on 07.08.2014. Therefore, following the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of counting of his part-time services from 07.11.2000 to 06.08.2014 as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and he is also entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.10.2019 (Annexure P-14) is hereby quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to count the entire service rendered by the petitioner as a Part-time Water Carrier from 07.11.2000 till the date of his regularization on 07.08.2014, followed by his regular service, as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The petitioner shall accordingly be entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS). The respondents shall revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner accordingly and release the consequential benefits to him, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that any differential amount under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) shall also be adjusted.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.