LPA-106-2025 (O 134 IN THE NAGAR PANC JAGDEV SING CORAM: HO HO Present: M M for SANJEEV PR CM-240-LPA- Ap appeal is allow Main case 1. The appe Single Ju case of th Lata vs. Harbans decided o contract (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH PANCHAYAT, SARDULGARH Vs. SINGH AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE **** Mr. M.S. Virk, Advocate for Ms. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocat for the appellant. **** V PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) -2025 Application for condonation of d allowed, and accordingly delay is con e appellant assails the order dated 09. ngle Judge whereby he has allowed se of the petitioner to be governed by t vs. The State of Punjab and oth bans Lal vs. State of Punjab and ded on 31.08.2010. It is stated that th ntract basis on 20.12.1987, whereaft NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH LPA-106-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.01.2025 . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA dvocate ral) n of delay of 218 days in filing of is condoned. ed 09.04.2024 passed by the learned owed the writ petition directing the d by the judgment passed in Jeewan d others, 2019 (4) SCT 271, and and others in CWP-2371-2010, that the petitioner was appointed on ereafter he was regularized on the M) 2025 llant s g of rned g the an and 10, d on the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.16 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-106-2025 (O post on whereaft contentio service f qualifyin 2. The learn in the ca the said granting 20.12.19 3. We find interferen the case 2023 (3) int wo fro sig the "S ph int re en em lat (O&M) st on 28.07.2011, having rendered m ereafter he was retired from the post ntention of the respondent/writ peti rvice from 1987 till regularization h alifying service. earned Single Judge after having co the case of Harbans Lal (supra) allo said period of service as qualify anting Old Pension Scheme benefit, as .12.1987 when the Old Pension Schem e find that the view taken by the Sing erference, as in a recent judgment pa case of State of Himachal Pradesh 3 (3) PLJR 413, the Supreme Court h “9. The Learned Advocate G interpretation, inasmuch as a facial would indicate that contractual em from the pale of Pension Rules. significant is that the rule itself in it the application of other provisions "Save as otherwise provided in these phrase of Rule 2 were to be understo interpretation of Rule 17 as is urge render such substantive provision re engrafted essentially to cater to the employees working on contract basis later stage. It is only for the purpose red more than 10 years of service, e post of Clerk on 31.05.2014. The it petitioner was that his previous tion has not been counted towards ving considered the judgment passed allowed the writ petition, treating qualifying service and accordingly efit, as the service was rendered from Scheme was invoked. e Single Judge does not warrant any ent passed by the Supreme Court in esh and another vs. Sheela Devi, ourt held as under: te General is correct in his acial reading of Rule 2(g) l employees are excluded ules. However, what is in its opening terms saves ions of the pension rules: these rules". If the opening erstood in this context, any urged by the State would n redundant. Rule 17 was the eventuality, where the basis were regularized at a rposes of pension that the vice, The ious ards ssed ating ingly from t any rt in evi, MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.16 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-106-2025 (O pa ac 4. In view accordin 5. All pend 16.01.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether (O&M) past service as a contractual emplo account.” view of above, no case for interfere cordingly dismissed. l pending applications also stand dispo (SANJE (ME ther speaking/reasoned? Ye ther reportable? Ye ployee is to be taken into terference is made out. LPA stands disposed of. ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No tands MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.16 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document