AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
PRAYER
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 actions of the respondents, specifically:
The appointment order dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) and the letter dated 10.07.2019 (Annexure P-5), only to the extent that the services of the deceased Government employee, Sh. Maan Singh, were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2011, whereas the petitioners claim that he ought to have been regularized in compliance with the policy for regularization of services of Class-IV employees working on a part-time basis dated 30.12.1998/25.02.1999 (Annexure P-17).
The sanction order dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure P-12), whereby petitioner No.1 was granted Monthly Financial Assistance but the claim of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment was not considered.
The speaking order dated 12.07.2021 (Annexure P-20), whereby the claim of the petitioners was rejected.
The petitioners further pray for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents:
To appoint petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds as per his entitlement under the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 (Annexure P-11).
To ante-date regularize the services of the husband of petitioner No.1 (the deceased Government employee) in compliance with the policy dated 30.12.1998/25.02.1999 (Annexure P-17) or w.e.f. 11.11.2003.
To grant the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme after considering the part-time service rendered by the deceased as qualifying service and to grant similar benefits, including opening of a GPF account and release of pension to the retired employees along with other service retiral benefits.
To grant actual arrears w.e.f. the date of regularization, along with all consequential benefits including actual arrears with 12% interest per annum.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS
Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia, contended that the late husband of the petitioner No.1, Sh. Maan Singh, was initially appointed as a Part-Time Sweeper in the year 1994. His appointment was made on the basis of a recommendation from the Employment Exchange, Ladwa, and a formal appointment order was issued by the Block Education Officer, Ladwa, on 12.08.1994 (Annexure P-2). Sh. Maan Singh joined his duties on 13.08.1994 (Annexure P-3) at Government Primary School, Sultanpur, Block Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. He was engaged on D.C. rate wages, which were subject to revision from time to time.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 09.07.2019, the services of part-time Class-IV employees, including Sh. Maan Singh, were regularized by the District Education Officer, Kurukshetra, vide order dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) and the regularization was given effect from 01.04.2011. In compliance thereof, the Principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Ladwa, issued an appointment letter on 10.07.2019 (Annexure P-5), regularizing Sh. Maan Singh's services in the pay band of Rs.4440-7440 with a grade pay of Rs.1300, w.e.f. 01.04.2011. Sh. Maan Singh joined his duties on the regular post on 12.07.2019 (Annexure P-6). It is further submitted that Sh. Maan Singh met with a fatal accident on 05.01.2020 and succumbed to his injuries on 10.01.2020 (Annexure P-7). Following his death, the matter of granting departmental benefits to the family was processed. Thereafter, the Principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Ladwa, forwarded the case to the Block Education Officer, Ladwa, on 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-8), which was subsequently sent to the District Education Officer, Kurukshetra, and then to the Director, Secondary Education, Panchkula, for the grant of Monthly Financial Assistance and ex gratia assistance (Annexure P-9). It is contended that petitioner No.1, the widow of the deceased Maan Singh, wrote a letter to the Director, Secondary Education, on 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-10), requesting that the matter of the Monthly Assistance Scheme be kept pending and her son, petitioner No.2, be appointed on compassionate grounds. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Ladwa, did not forward the claim of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment, on the ground that Sh. Maan Singh had joined the services on regular basis only on 12.07.2019 and, therefore, he had not completed the mandatory period of 05 years of regular service as required under the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 (Annexure P-11) (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 2019’).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has specifically referred to Rule 4 of the Rules of 2019, and argued that the family members of a deceased government employee are eligible for consideration of compassionate appointment if the deceased employee has completed 05 years of regular service. He has contended that since the services of Sh. Maan Singh (since deceased) were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2011, he had completed more than 08 years of regular service at the time of his death in January, 2020 and as such, petitioner No.2 is fully eligible for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that the claim for compassionate appointment must be considered in light of the policy prevalent at the time of the employee's death. Since Sh. Maan Singh died on 10.01.2020, the Rules of 2019 would apply. As per Rule 4(1)(ii) of the said Rules, the deceased employee should not have attained the age of 52 years or more on the date of his death and since the deceased employee i.e. Maan Singh was 48 years old when he died, he fulfilled this condition for compassionate appointment.
Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the part-time service rendered by the deceased from 1994 to 2011 ought to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. He 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 denying pensionary benefits to the petitioners is contrary to the settled law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners 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.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that the claim of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment has been rightly rejected. He has contended that petitioner No.1 had accepted the Monthly Financial Assistance under the Rules of 2019. He has submitted that the bereaved family has to choose between compassionate appointment and financial assistance. Since the family opted for financial assistance, they cannot claim compassionate appointment as well.
Learned State counsel has further contended that Sh. Maan Singh (since deceased) was regularized on 10.07.2019 and he joined the regular post on 12.07.2019 and thus, at the time of his death on 10.01.2020, he had completed less than one year of regular service and had not completed the mandatory five years of regular service prescribed under Rule 4 of the 2019 Rules. As such, the claim of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment is not maintainable.
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
The present case gives rise to two different issues for adjudication by this Court, which are as under:
Whether the respondents were justified in denying the claim of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment on the ground that the deceased government employee had not completed five years of regular service, despite his services being regularized with retrospective effect?
Whether the part-time service rendered by the deceased husband of petitioner No.1 from 1994 to 2011 is liable to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits?
ISSUE No.1: COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
Before delving into the issue, it would be apposite to reproduce Rule 4 of the Rules of 2019 (Annexure P-11), which is the governing rule for eligibility for compassionate appointment:
"4.(1) The family member shall be eligible for consideration of compassionate appointment under these rules subject to the condition that the deceased or missing Government employee should, –
(i)have completed five years service on regular basis;
(ii)have not attained the age of fifty-two years or more upto the date of death or missing; and
(iii)not be suspected to have committed fraud or joined any terrorist organisation or gone abroad.
Explanation. – Five years service includes the period of all kinds of leave sanctioned by the competent authority and availed by the deceased or missing Government employee while working on regular basis.
(2)Compassionate appointment would not be a matter of right and it will be subject to fulfillment of all the conditions, including the availability of vacancy, as laid down for such appointment under these rules.
Further, it is also necessary to examine the definition of "family for the purpose of compassionate appointment" as provided under Rule 5 of the said Rules, which reads as under:
"5.(1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a)"compassionate financial assistance" means a monthly assistance at the rate specified by Government by notification from time to time, which is admissible under these rules to the eligible family member(s) of a Government employee who dies or disappears while in service subject to future good conduct;
(b)"compassionate appointment" means appointment of an eligible family member of deceased or a missing Government employee to the post of, Group C or D, lower than the functional pay level of the post held by the deceased or missing Government employee, at the time of death or disappearance while in service;
(c)"deceased Government employee" means a Government employee who while working on regular basis dies while in service;
(d)"dependent" means a family member whose total income from all sources is less than the sum of minimum family pension plus dearness relief thereon as specified from time to time by Government.
Note. – Parents shall be deemed to be dependent on the Government employee if their combined income is less than the minimum family pension, specified from time to time, plus the dearness relief admissible thereon. Unmarried Disabled siblings [brother(s) and sister(s)] shall be deemed to be dependent on the Government employee if their income is less than the minimum family pension plus dearness relief;
(e)"eligible family member" means spouse or a dependent member of the family of deceased or missing Government employee in order of priority seeking financial assistance or appointment on compassionate grounds;
(f)"family for the purpose of compassionate financial assistance" means –
(i)(a) widow (widows wherever permissible under personal law) or widower, upto the date of re-marriage or death, whichever is earlier;
(b)judicially separated spouse of a deceased or missing Government employee, provided that such separation has not been granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery;
(c)childless widow of a deceased or missing Government employee who has not remarried provided her independent income from all other sources is less than the minimum family pension prescribed by the State Government from time to time plus dearness relief thereon. In all such cases, she shall be required to give a declaration regarding her income from all other sources to the Head of Office once in every six months;
(ii)failing (i) above, the eldest unmarried and dependent son(s) or daughter(s) upto the age of twenty-five years;
(iii)failing (i) and (ii) above, the dependent eldest divorced or widowed daughter(s) upto the age of twenty-five years, upto the date of her marriage/re-marriage or till the date she starts earning livelihood, whichever is the earliest provided she should have been widowed or divorced before the date of expiry of eligibility of other existing family member for compassionate financial assistance;
(iv)failing (i) to (iii) above, the dependent eldest daughter amongst unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters of above twenty-five years, upto the date of her marriage/re-marriage or till the date she starts earning livelihood, whichever is earlier. In case of widowed/divorced daughter, she should have been widowed/divorced before the date of expiry of eligibility of other family member for compassionate financial assistance;
(v)failing (i) to (iv) above, son and daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or physically crippled or disabled irrespective of his/her age provided they were wholly dependent upon the Government employee when he/she was alive;
(vi)failing (i) to (v) above, parents who were wholly dependent on the Government employee when he/she was alive provided their present combined income is less than the minimum family pension, prescribed from time to time, plus dearness relief thereon;
(vii)failing (i) to (vi) above, unmarried physically disabled sibling (brother and sister) provided they were wholly dependent upon the deceased Government employee when he/she was alive:
Note 1. – For the purpose of this rule, "widow" means legally wedded wife of deceased Government employee.
Note 2. – Divorce by the Panchayat or Social Organizations shall not constitute a legal divorce.
Note 3. – Son/daughter includes children legally adopted under the Hindu Law or personal law of the Government employee residing with and wholly dependent upon his/her parent but does not include step children.
Note 4. – It shall be the duty of person who is drawing compassionate financial assistance (son, daughter, parents, siblings or the guardian, as the case may be) to furnish a certificate to the disbursing authority, twice in a year, i.e. in the month of March and September every year, that she/he or they have not started earning his/her or their livelihood. A similar certificate shall also be furnished by a childless widow after her re-marriage;"
(g)"Family for the purpose of compassionate appointment" means
(i)widow or widower;
Note 1. – Judicially separated wife or husband shall not be a member of the family for the purpose of compassionate appointment without the consent of the remaining eligible family members;
(ii)children, including adopted children, already not in service in any Department or Organization under any State Government or Government of India; and
(iii)dependent brother and sister in case of unmarried deceased or missing Government employee only"
A plain reading of Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2019, indicates that for a family member to be considered for compassionate appointment, the deceased Government employee must have completed five years of service on a regular basis and should not have attained the age of 52 years or more on the date of death.
In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the deceased employee, Sh. Maan Singh, was engaged as a part-time Sweeper on 13.08.1994. However, on 09.07.2019, the respondent/Department issued the order dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) regularizing his services w.e.f. 01.04.2011. The appointment letter dated 10.07.2019 (Annexure P-5) issued in compliance with the regularization order also explicitly states that the service of Sh. Maan Singh has been regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2011.
The sole ground taken by the respondents for denying compassionate appointment to petitioner No.2 is that the deceased employee had not completed five years of regular service before his death, as he joined on a regular basis only on 12.07.2019. This argument, however, is incorrect and is based on a misinterpretation of the Rules of 2019. The respondents themselves, vide order dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure P-4), regularized the services of Sh. Maan Singh (since deceased), with retrospective effect from 01.04.2011 and as such, the regular service of Sh. Maan Singh (since deceased) has to be counted from 01.04.2011. The respondents cannot, on the one hand, treat his service as regular from 01.04.2011 and, on the other hand, deny the benefit of such regular service to his family for the purpose of compassionate appointment. Since the claim for compassionate appointment is to be considered under the Rules applicable on the date of death, the deceased’s regular service has to be counted from the date of his retrospective regularization, i.e. 01.04.2011.
The claim for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected merely because the family had also applied for financial assistance. Although the family has to choose between the two benefits, the respondents were required to consider the claim for compassionate appointment before granting financial assistance. In the present case, petitioner No.1 had specifically requested that the claim for financial assistance be kept pending till the claim for compassionate appointment was considered vide letter dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-10). The respondents, however, sanctioned the financial assistance without first deciding the claim for compassionate appointment. The proper course was to consider both the claims simultaneously and thereafter, give the family an opportunity to exercise its choice.
It is also relevant to note that there is a difference between the definition of "family for the purpose of compassionate financial assistance" under Rule 5(f) and "family for the purpose of compassionate appointment" under Rule 5(g). The definition of "family for the purpose of compassionate financial assistance" under Rule 5(f)(ii) provides an age limit of 25 years for an eldest unmarried and dependent son or daughter. However, Rule 5(g)(ii), which defines "family for the purpose of compassionate appointment", includes children, including adopted children, who are not already in service in any department or organization under any State Government or Government of India, without imposing any such age restriction. In the present case, petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased employee and is not employed with the State Government or Central Government. His status as a dependent has also not been disputed, therefore, petitioner No.2 is eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 2019.
A two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157 categorically held that as far as compassionate appointment is concerned, the policy applicable at the time of death of the deceased employee would prevail. Speaking through Justice M.R. Shah, the following was held:
“4.The deceased employee died on 08.10.2015. At the time of death, he was working as a work charge employee, who was paid the salary from the contingency fund. As per the policy/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee, i.e., policy/circular No.C-3-12/2013/1-3 dated 29.09.2014 in case of death of the employee working on work charge, his dependents/heirs were not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs as compensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to be amended vide circular dated 31.08.2016, under which even in the case of death of the work charge employee, his heirs/dependents will be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Relying upon the subsequent circular/policy dated 31.08.2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. As per the settled preposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.
4.1In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. v. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496. It is required to be noted that in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra) the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
Moreover, a Full Bench of this Court in Krishna Kumari vs. State of Haryana 2012 (2) SCT 736, speaking through Justice Rajan Gupta, answered the reference- “whether it would be the rules in operation at the time of death of the employee or the rules applicable on the date when case is considered by the appropriate authority” in the following manner:
“11.…In our considered view date of death of an employee is an important factor to be taken into consideration as schemes for compassionate appointment are floated with a view to provide immediate relief to families of deceased employees to meet the financial crisis they face on death of sole bread winner. Travails of the family begin immediately thereafter. In that context, date of death assumes significance. Purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship at that time. Thus policy applicable on the date of death needs to be invoked to provide immediate relief. Application seeking compassionate appointment should be moved promptly thereafter by his dependent and considered by the employer without undue delay. In case an application is considered by the authority after lapse of time, objective of scheme is defeated. Such schemes which are in the nature of social welfare measure and have been recognised as an exception to the general rule for offering public employment would necessarily be applicable strictly in the parameters laid down therein and accepted by the apex court in its various decisions. Particular reference may be made here to Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors, 1994(3) S.C.T. 174 : (1994) 4 SCC 138, wherein it was held that whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis and to save the family from financial destitution. This favourable treatment given to dependent of the deceased employee was accepted as it bore a rationale nexus to the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. The Supreme Court held :-
"6.For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
7.It is needless to emphasise that the provisions for compassionate employment have necessarily to be made by the rules or by the executive instructions issued by the Government or the public authority concerned. The employment cannot be offered by an individual functionary on an ad hoc basis."
In view of this clear enunciation of law we cannot but come to the conclusion that rules applicable on the date of death/incapacitation of an employee need to be followed. Needless to observe it is upto the authority to consider the application without inordinate delay and take a decision thereon. In the eventuality application remains pending for considerable period and some other policy comes into operation, no fault can be found on part of the employee. This appears to be the principle recognised by the Apex court in its recent judgment in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar's case. As held therein, application for compassionate employment has to be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time as compassionate appointment is to meet the sudden crisis on account of death or invalidation of the bread winner of the family. We, thus, come to the conclusion that in case an application is made by the dependent belatedly or is considered after inordinate delay, basic requirement of meeting the immediate crisis becomes redundant. Since the objective of the policy is to rescue the family from sudden event plunging it into penury, consideration of application after number of years would be beyond the principles accepted by the apex court in its various decisions. In such circumstances, it would be difficult to accept the exception to the general rule of employment as envisaged by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We answer the reference accordingly.”
(emphasis added)
Consequently, this Court holds that the respondents erred in denying compassionate appointment to petitioner No.2. The deceased employee (Sh. Maan Singh), having been regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2011, is deemed to have completed more than five years of regular service at the time of his death i.e. 10.01.2020. It is also not in dispute that the deceased employee i.e. Sh. Maan Singh, had not attained the age of 52 years. Therefore, the impugned rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment is liable to be quashed.
ISSUE No.2: COUNTING OF PART-TIME SERVICE FOR PENSION
The second issue pertains to the entitlement of the petitioners for counting the part-time service rendered by the deceased employee (Sh. Maan Singh) from 13.08.1994 to 31.03.2011 as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
The law on this point is no longer res integra and this issue 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 deceased husband of petitioner No.1 (Sh. Maan Singh) was engaged as a part-time Sweeper from 13.08.1994 until his regularization on 01.04.2011. Thus, he had continuously served the respondent/Department for more than 16 years before his services were regularized. The respondents cannot ignore such a long period of continuous service merely because the deceased employee was initially engaged on part-time basis. A perusal of record clearly indicates that the services of deceased employee (Sh. Maan Singh) were regularized by the respondents themselves w.e.f. 01.04.2011. There is nothing on record to show that his engagement was for a short period or only for a temporary or specific contingency. Therefore, the long period of service rendered by deceased husband of petitioner No.1 (Sh. Maan Singh) from 13.08.1994 to 31.03.2011, followed by his regularization with retrospective effect, is liable to be counted as qualifying service for pension.
It is further not in dispute that Sh. Maan Singh (since deceased) was already working with the respondent/Department before 01.01.2006, i.e. the date from which the New Pension Scheme was introduced in the State of Haryana. The subsequent regularization of his services, by itself, would not dis-entitle him or his family members from the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of counting the past part-time service rendered by the deceased employee, Sh. Maan Singh, from 13.08.1994 to 31.03.2011 as qualifying service for pensionary purposes. The respondents are directed to count the said period while calculating the pension and other retiral benefits payable to the petitioners and release the consequential benefits, in accordance with law. Since the deceased employee was initially engaged prior to the introduction of the New Pension Scheme, the respondents shall also consider his entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme, in accordance with the applicable rules.
CONCLUSION
In view of the above discussions, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned speaking order dated 12.07.2021 (Annexure P-20) is hereby quashed and set-aside.
The respondents are directed to consider and decide the claim of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment afresh within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in the light of the observations made hereinabove and in accordance with the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019. It is clarified that the respondents shall not reject the claim of petitioner No.2 solely on the ground that the deceased employee had not completed five years of regular service as it is deemed to have been completed from the date of retrospective regularization, i.e., 01.04.2011.
The respondent/Department is further directed to count the part-time service rendered by the deceased employee (Sh. Maan Singh) from 13.08.1994 to 31.03.2011 as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The petitioners shall accordingly be entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. The respondents shall revise the pensionary benefits of the deceased employee accordingly and release the consequential benefits to the petitioners within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The petitioners are also directed to return the amount received by them as Monthly Financial Assistance vide Annexure P-12, and upon such return, the same shall be adjusted against the arrears of pension and other benefits. The respondents shall further ensure that the payment of arrears is made along with interest @ 6% per annum to be calculated from the date of filing the present petition till the date of actual payment.
The respondents shall also ensure that the pension and other retiral benefits are disbursed in accordance with the applicable rules and within the stipulated time frame.
It is made clear that any deviation from the directions issued by this Court, would entitle the petitioners to move an appropriate application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.