AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.3 whereby he has refused to give benefit to petitioner (class-IV employee) related to Old Pension Scheme saying that as per the Haryana New Pension Scheme 2008 (Annexure P-5), the General Provident Funds Scheme is not applicable to those employees who have joined service on or after 01.01.2006 and petitioner has joined service under respondents w.e.f. 03.01.2006, whereas this objection of respondents is against their own subsequent instructions dated 22.08.2008 (Annexure P-6). Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to release retiral/pensionary benefits to petitioner under Old Pension Scheme by counting his services on regular basis from the date of issuance of the regularization/appointed order dated 22.12.2005 (Annexure P-1) to treat his part time basis services; rendered by him in the respondent’s department itself prior to his regularization from 01.04.1991 to 02.01.2006 as a qualifying service for grant of retiral/pensionary benefits under Old Pension Scheme.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was initially appointed on part-time basis as a Sweeper on 01.04.1991 and his services were regularized vide order dated 22.12.2005 (Annexure P-1). However, the petitioner could join only on 03.01.2006 due to the fault attributable to the official respondents. It is submitted that immediately after the issuance of the regularization order dated 22.12.2005, the petitioner approached the Headmaster, Government Girls Middle School, Sonhasra, Bhiwani, for joining, but the concerned Headmaster refused to accept his joining on the ground that no vacancy of Class-IV employee was available in the said school as a permanent employee was already working there. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued order dated 29/30.12.2005 (Annexure P-3) posting the petitioner as Class-IV Peon in Government High School, Nangal, Bhiwani, pursuant whereto the petitioner joined on 03.01.2006 after completing the requisite formalities, including medical examination, as is evident from the joining report (Annexure P-4). It is, thus, contended that the Contributory Pension Scheme, applicable to employees appointed on or after 01.01.2006, cannot be made applicable to the petitioner, whose appointment stood regularized vide order dated 22.12.2005, and that the delay in joining was solely attributable to the respondents. It is further contended that the past service rendered by the petitioner on part-time basis is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, 2024 NCPHHC 095763. Learned counsel also places reliance upon the judgments rendered by this Court in Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP-12826-2017, decided on 22.12.2025, Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and others, 1988 (2) PLR 223, Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and others, 2012 (3) SCT 362, Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab and others, 2019 (4) SCT 271, and Om Prakash v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-20263-2024, decided on 09.07.2026.
Per contra, learned State Counsel is not in a position to controvert the fact that the petitioner was initially engaged on part-time basis on 01.04.1991 and that his services were regularized vide order dated 22.12.2005 (Annexure P-1). He, however, submits that the petitioner actually joined the regular post only on 03.01.2006 and, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. Learned State Counsel is, however, not in a position to controvert the fact that the service rendered by the petitioner on part-time basis is liable to be taken into consideration towards qualifying service for pension in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand (supra), the Division Bench judgment in Harbans Lal (supra), as well as the subsequent judgments rendered by this Court in State Jai Bhagwan (supra) and Om Prakash (supra).
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
There is no dispute that the petitioner's services were regularized vide order dated 22.12.2005. Merely because the petitioner could join the regular post on 03.01.2006, for reasons attributable to the respondents themselves, he cannot be deprived of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. A beneficial scheme cannot be interpreted or applied in a hyper-technical manner so as to defeat the legitimate rights of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme merely because he joined on 03.01.2006 for reasons attributable to the respondents themselves.
The controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra. The issue regarding counting of past part-time service towards qualifying service for pension stands squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab and others, CWP-10238-2017, decided on 10.05.2019, Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP-12826-2017, decided on 22.12.2025 along with a bunch of connected petitions, Bimla Devi v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, CWP-1672-2026, decided on 23.01.2026, and Jagdish v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, CWP-4590-2026, 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 pensionary and other retiral benefits to the petitioner by not counting the past service rendered by him on part-time basis cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, CWP-626-2015, decided on 17.03.2015, wherein the service rendered by a part-time Sweeper prior to regularization was directed to be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The said judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana and others v. Zile Singh, LPA-426-2016, decided on 18.03.2016. The relevant extract reads as under:
“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.”
The Division Bench of this Court in Jai Bhagwan (supra), while dealing with the claim of similarly situated part-time employees, held that "the respondent has worked without interruption and break, thus, it would be travesty of justice, if it is concluded that they are not entitled to counting of service rendered before their regularization." The Division Bench further observed that "the State is a model employer and is not expected to exploit its citizen. Paying a small amount and depriving people from regular employment is nothing more than exploitation." The aforesaid observations squarely apply to the facts of the present case, where the petitioner rendered uninterrupted part-time service for several years before his regularization and, therefore, the said service is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
Once the petitioner has been regularized in view of the perennial nature of the duties performed by him since 01.04.1991, he is also entitled to have the benefit of the past service rendered by him on part-time basis counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and following the binding observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Jai Bhagwan’s case (supra, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the past service rendered by the petitioner on part-time basis towards qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits and, thereafter, recalculate and release all consequential pensionary benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also be extended the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme as applicable to the employees whose services regularized prior to 01.01.2006. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner has received any amount under the Contributory Pension Scheme, the same shall be adjusted/refunded in accordance with the applicable Rules before release of the benefits under the Old Pension Scheme.
It is made clear that while the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential pensionary and retiral benefits in terms of this order, he shall not be entitled to any interest on the delayed payment thereof.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.