CWP IN TH 115+210(34 c 1. RAJESH KU STATE OF 2. BIMLA DEV STATE OF P 3. ASHOK KUM STATE OF P 4. GURMEET K STATE OF P 1 P-12826-2017 and others connecte N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA 0(34 cases)+234+256 H KUMAR AND OTHERS V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS DEVI V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS K KUMAR V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS EET KAUR V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ected matters NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH Date of Decision:22.12.2025 CWP-12826-2017 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS CWP-10031-2025 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-10636-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-10685-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS .2025 2017 NERS ENTS 2025 NER NTS 2024 NER NTS 2024 NER NTS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 5. RANGDEV S STATE OF P 6. PAWAN KU STATE OF P 7. RAJ PAL STATE OF P 8. HARJINDER V/S STATE OF P 2 P-12826-2017 and others connecte DEV SINGH V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS N KUMAR V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS NDER SINGH OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ected matters CWP-1923-2025 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-10690-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-10722-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-10736-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NER NTS 2024 NER NTS 2024 NER NTS 2024 NER NTS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 9. BAIJ NATH STATE OF P 10. VIJAY KUM STATE OF P 11. ROMINDER STATE OF P 12. TEHAIL SIN STATE OF P 3 P-12826-2017 and others connecte ATH V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS KUMAR V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS NDER BIR SINGH V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS IL SINGH V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ected matters CWP-10891-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-10954-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-11030-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-13144-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 2024 NER NTS 2024 NER NTS 2024 NER NTS 2024 NER NTS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 13. CHARAN SI STATE OF P 14. BIMLA RAN STATE OF P 15. MAHABIR P STATE OF 16. PARAMJIT S STATE OF P 17. HARI HAR Y STATE OF 4 P-12826-2017 and others connecte AN SINGH AND ANR V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS RANI V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS BIR PARSHAD AND OTHERS V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS MJIT SINGH @ PARMJIT SINGH A V/S OF PUNJAB AND ORS HAR YADAV AND OTHERS V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ected matters CWP-1403-2021 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-17470-2022 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-17608-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-18513-2024 GH AND ORS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-21530-2023 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NERS NTS 2022 NER NTS 2024 NERS NTS 2024 NERS NTS 2023 NERS NTS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 18. NIDHAN SIN STATE OF P 19. SUKHDEV S STATE OF 20. OM PARKA STATE OF P 21. GURMEET R STATE OF P 5 P-12826-2017 and others connecte N SINGH V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS DEV SINGH AND ANR. V/S OF PUNJAB AND ORS. RKASH V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS EET RAM V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ected matters CWP-22653-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-23079-2017 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS CWP-23762-2023 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-24274-2022 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 2024 NER NTS 2017 NERS NTS 2023 NER NTS 2022 NER NTS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 22. SANJIV KUM STATE OF P 23. BALJINDER STATE OF 24. MEERA SHA STATE OF P 25. RANJIT SIN STATE OF 6 P-12826-2017 and others connecte V KUMAR V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS NDER SINGH AND OTHERS V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS A SHARMA V/S OF PUNJAB AND ORS T SINGH AND OTHERS V/S OF PUNJAB THROUGH ITS SECR ected matters CWP-24324-2023 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-25194-2022 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-28132-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-31988-2025 PETITIONER SECRETARY AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS 2023 NER NTS 2022 NERS NTS 2024 NER NTS 2025 NERS NTS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 26. KEWAL KR STATE OF 27. OM PARKA STATE OF 28. MADAN SIN STATE OF P 29. KULDEEP S STATE OF P 7 P-12826-2017 and others connecte L KRISHAN AND OTHERS V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS RKASH V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS N SINGH V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS EEP SINGH V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ected matters CWP-33549-2025 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-34014-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-34089-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-5163-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 2025 NERS NTS 2024 NER NTS 2024 NER NTS NER NTS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 30. SUKHWIND PUNJAB ST 31. RAJ KUMAR STATE OF P 32. PREM SAGA STATE OF 33. AVTAR SIN V/S STATE OF P 34. IQBAL STATE OF P 8 P-12826-2017 and others connecte WINDER SINGH V/S B STATE POWER CORPORATION UMAR AND OTHERS V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS SAGAR AND ANOTHER V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS R SINGH OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ected matters CWP-6937-2021 PETITIONER TION LTD. AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS CWP-8597-2023 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-8700-2023 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-9046-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-9200-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS NER NTS NERS ENTS NER NTS NER NTS NER NTS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 35. REENA STATE OF P 36. ANJU BALA STATE OF P CORAM: Present: 9 P-12826-2017 and others connecte VS OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS BALA AND OTHERS VS OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-12 Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate for th (in CWP-8700-2023 & 18513- Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CWP140 Mr. R.K. Arora, Sr. Advocate wi Advocate and Mr. Jugam Arora, (in CWP-6937-2021). Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for th 2022. Mr. Atul Arya, Advocate for the (in CWP-17470-2022). Mr. Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Ad Mr. Ashish Goklaney, Advocate (in CWP-25194-2022). Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advoca ected matters CWP-20531-2021 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS CWP-1229-2024 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR 12826-2017). for the petitioner(s) -2024). P1403-2021). cate with Mr. Prabhat K. Jalbera, Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) for the petitioner in CWP-24274- for the petitioner(s) ey, Advocate and vocate for the petitioner(s) dvocate, Mr. Hargen Sethi, 2021 NER ENTS NER NTS er(s) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 10 P-12826-2017 and others connecte Mr. Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advoc (in CWPs-23079-2017 and 8597 Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate, fo Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for t (in CWP-21530-2023). Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for (in CWP-23762-2023). Ms. Narender Kaur, Advocate fo (in CWP-24324-2023). Mr. Sonia G. Singh Samber and for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-5163-2024). Mr. Mage Ram Sharma, Advoca for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-176 Mr. Gurvinder Pal Singh, Advoc Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in Mr. Abhishek Singla, Mr. B.P.S Advocates for the petitioner(s) (in CWPs-9046, 10636, 9200,10 28132, 10891, 10954, 11030-202 Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate and Mr. Yuraj Dhananjaya, Advocate (in CWP-13144-2024). Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advoca (in CWPs-34014-2024, 34089- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advo for the petitioner in CWP-12826 Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for (in CWP-22653-2024). Ms. Manjari Joshi, Advocate for the respondent-Bank (in CWP ected matters Advocates for the petitioner(s) 8597-2023). ate, for te for the petitioner(s) ate for the petitioner(s) cate for the petitioner(s) er and Ms.Seema Kumari, Advocate dvocate, 17608-2024). Advocate for Mr. P.S. Khurana, (in CWP-22653-2024). B.P.S Thakur and Ms. Tanya Sehgal 00,10685, 10690, 10722, 10736, 2024, 31988, 33549-2025). ate and vocate for the petitioner(s) dvocate for the petitioner(s) -2024 & 10031-2025). , Advocate 12826-2017. unjab-State. ate for respondents No. 2 to 4 n CWP-24274-2022). , PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 11 P-12826-2017 and others connecte Mr. Sanjeev Soni,Mr. Sarthak S Ms. Nishtha Grover and Mr. Tar respondent-Municipal Corporatio 2023, 8700-2023, 10636,9046, 28132, 10891, 9200, 10954,1103 Ms. Kulwinder Pal Kaur Gill, Ad Mr. Jastej Advocate for responde (in CWP-24274-2022). Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for respondent No.3 (in CWP-17 Mr. Inderpal Singh, Advocate fo Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate for (in CWP-5163-2024). Mr. Harpreet Singh Multani and Advocates, for respondents No.3 Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for (in CWP-12826-2017). Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for res (in CWP-17470-2022). Mr. Gursimran S. Bawa, Advoca (in CWP-8700-2023). Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate (in CWP-25194-2022). Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate (in CWP-25194-2022). Ms. Roja Agnihotri, Advocate fo Corporation (in CWP-23762-202 Mr. Brijeshwar Vashist, Advoca (in CWP-24324-2023). Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate for Dera Baba Nanak & M.C.Malerk 18513-2024), respectively. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for re (in CWP-6937-2021). Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for respondent-M.C. in CWP-31 Mr. Jaswinder Kaur, Advocate fo Advocate for respondent-Bank. ected matters hak Soni, Mr. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, r. Tara Dutt, Advocates for poration (in CWPs-1403-2021, 8597 ,9046, 10685, 10690, 10722, 10736, 4,11030-2024. ill, Advocate for spondent No.3 vocate 17608-2024). cate for ate for respondent No.3 and Mr. Karanbir Singh Randhawa s No.3 to 5 (in CWPs-23079-2017). ate for respondent No.4 for respondent No.4 dvocate for respondent No.4 ocate for respondent No.5 ocate for respondent No.5 cate for respondent-Municipal 2023). dvocate for respondent No.5 te for respondent-Municipal Council Malerkotla (in CWPs- 13144 and e for respondent-PSPCL 31988-2025. cate for Ms. Manjari Joshik, ank. 8597- hawa, uncil PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP HARPREET CM-5383-CW CPC for plac Department o and 2 along w allowed, as p are ordered to Main 1. petitions as th brevity, the fa 2. 226/227 of th on part-time pension; and recruited pri Pension and G 3. petitioners’ i subsequent re the cut-off da 12 P-12826-2017 and others connecte REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) CWP-2025 in CWP-34014-2024 The present application has be or placing on record affidavit of Sh. ment of Local Government, Punjab long with Annexures R-1 to R-4. In view of the grounds mentione d, as prayed for, subject to all just exc ered to be taken on record. Registry is directed to place the This order of mine shall dispos s as they arise from a similar factual m , the facts are taken from CWP-12826 The present civil writ petition 7 of the Constitution of India, to cou time basis followed by regular ser n; and Grant them pensionary benef ed prior to 01.01.2004 under the n and General Provident Fund Rules, 1 Learned counsel for the petition ers’ initial appointment in July 1994 uent regularization in 2008 does not m off date. He relies on the Division B ected matters 4 has been filed under Section 151 of of Sh. Jagdeep Saigal, Joint director, njab on behalf of respondents No.1 ntioned in the application, the same is ust exceptions. Annexures R-1 to R- ace the same at an appropriate place. dispose of the above-mentioned writ ctual matrix. However, for the sake of 12826-2017. etition has been filed under Articles to count their entire service rendered ar service for qualifying service for benefits as applicable to employees the Punjab Municipal Employees ules, 1994. etitioners inter alia contends that the y 1994 prior to 01.01.2004 and their s not make them “new entrants” after sion Bench judgment of this Court in 51 of rector, No.1 ame is -4 place. d writ ake of rticles dered ce for loyees loyees at the their ” after urt in PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Harbans Lal the Supreme before regul pension, and 01.01.2004. H 2024 NCPHH was directed 4. petitioners w pension sche hours a da Simultaneous further subm were well aw benefits. 5. perusing the the responde later regulari claim made b have held Ha without provi 13 P-12826-2017 and others connecte s Lal vs. State of Punjab, 2010 SCC preme Court, wherein it was held th regularization must be counted to n, and such employees are deeme 004. He also places reliance on State PHHC 95763, where part-time serv rected to be counted for pension. Per contra, learned counsel for t ers were regularized after 01.01.2004 n scheme. Further they were part-tim a day and cannot be equated aneously the petition suffers from d submits that when the petitioners a ell aware of the terms of regularizati Having heard the learned couns g the records it transpires that the pet pondent-Committee as Safai Sewaks gularised in the year 2008. Further th made by the petitioners through repre Harbans Lal (supra) to be inappli t providing any reasoning for this conc ected matters CC Online P&H 8181, affirmed by eld that daily wage service rendered ted towards qualifying service for deemed to be in service prior to State of Haryana vs. Jai Bhagwan, e service followed by regularization el for the respondents submits that the .2004 and are governed by the new time employees working only 4 ated with full-time daily wagers. rom delay and laches. The counsel ners accepted the employment they larization which excluded pensionary counsel for both the parties and after he petitioners have been in service of waks since the year 1994 who were rther the respondents have denied the representation dated 17.02.2017 and napplicable, distinguishing it on facts, is conclusion. ed by dered e for ior to an, zation at the e new nly 4 agers. unsel t they ionary after ice of were ed the 7 and facts, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 6. Rules of 1994 14 P-12826-2017 and others connecte Further, the service of the petit f 1994. The relevant provisions of the “1. Short title and commenceme (1)These rules may be ca Corporation Employees Pension Rules, 1994. (2) They shall be deemed to ha effect from the first day of April who are members of the Corporation, and in the case of a non-provincialised Service of into force from such date, as th determine, by a resolution passe (3) They shall apply to the emplo (i) who are appointed on 1990 on whole time regula (ii) who were working imm April, 1990 on whole time rules : Provided that the em immediately before the first day during the period between the f date of publication of these rule have the option to opt for thes months from the date of publicat condition that they shall have contribution towards their C including interest thereon rec simple interest on the whole am per annum from the date o repayment. (4) They shall not apply to the em (a) opt out of these rules; ected matters e petitioners is also governed by the of the same are reproduced below: cement and application. – called the Punjab Municipal nsion and General Provident Fund o have come into force on and with pril, 1990 in the case of employees he provincialised Service of a e of employees who are members of e of a Corporation, they shall come as the concerned Corporation may, assed in this behalf. mployees of the Corporations, - d on or after the first day of April, egular basis; and immediately, before the first day of time regular basis and opt for these employees who were working day of April, 1990 and who retired the first day of April, 1990 and the rules in the Official Gazette, shall these rules within a period of four lication of these rules, subject to the have to refund the Corporation’s ir Contributory Provident Fund received by them together with e amount at the rate of ten per cent e of withdrawal to the date of he employees, who – les; y the ipal und with yees f a rs of ome ay, pril, y of hese king tired the hall four the on’s und with cent of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 7. the municipa Thus, in term towards qual between regu has been con duration of pensionary b only for con perennial nat 1994. As su of pensionar 15 P-12826-2017 and others connecte (b) are members of All Service; (c) are paid out of conting (d) are work-charged emp (e) are employed after sup (f) are employed on co contract provides otherwis (g) are specifically exclu operation of these rules. 2. Definitions.- (k) "qualifying service" means Corporation for which an Corporation fund and shall incl the Government of Punjab, Committee or any other Public S before joining the Service; (l) "Service" means the service Corporation;” Admittedly, the salary of the p nicipal funds since their engagement in terms of Rule 2(k) of the Rules s qualifying service as no distinction gular and work-charged employe en continuously working, on daily-wa n of time, such service cannot nary benefits. Such service in no way or contingencies. The petitioners we ial nature of their services that they ha As such, they deserve the benefits of sionary benefits as well. Further, whil ected matters All India Service or Punjab Civil ntingencies; employees; r superannuation; contract basis, except when the erwise; and xcluded wholly or partly from the ans the service rendered under a an employee is paid from the include any service rendered under jab, any Improvement Trust, a lic Sector Undertaking immediately ice rendered under the control of a the petitioners was being paid from ement on contract in the year 1994. ules of 1994, the same must count inction has been made in this regard ployees. Tritely, where an employee wage or contract, for a significant nnot be ignored while computing o way can be treated as engagement ers were regularised in view of the hey had been rendering since the year fits of the same towards computation r, while striking down sub-rule (ii) of ivil the the er a the nder , a tely of a from 1994. count regard loyee ificant puting ement of the e year tation (ii) of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP Rule 3.17 of Kesar Chand that when a c same must a Speaking thro “19. In (ii) of period into ac of a w public it. This June 1 (B.& publish otherw No. 14 where put in service of a wo be har availab Equal all pe becaus equalit Govern service employ has no service Govern started subseq and, th charge 16 P-12826-2017 and others connecte .17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules hand vs. State of Punjab and others en a certain duration of service is cou ust also be counted towards compu ng through Justice G.R. Majithia, the f 9. In the light of the above, let us e ) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules riod of service in a work-charged e to account in calculating the qualify a work-charged employee have b blic servant. The service is under t This is what was precisely stated ne 1, 1972, between the Workmen a .& R.), Establishment Branch, blished in the Government Gazett herwise, the matter was settled by . 14095-BRI (3)-72/5383 dated 6th ere it was stated that all those wor t in ten years of service or more a rvice would be deemed to have been a work charged employee have bee hardly any logic to deprive him of ailable to other public servants u ual protection of laws must mean t l persons similarly situated. Art cause a provision which is arbitr uality. Even the temporary or offic overnment had to be reckoned fo rvice. It looks to be illogical that th ployee in a work charged establish s not been taken into consideration rvice. The classification which is vernment servants who are eligib rted as work-charged employees bsequently, and the others is not ba d, therefore, is not sustainable at law arged employee have been regulari ected matters s Rules, a Full Bench of this Court in hers AIR 1988 Punjab 265 has held counted towards regularisation, the computation of pensionary benefits. a, the following was held: us examine the validity of rule 3.17 ules Vol. II. This rule says that the ed establishment shall not be taken ualifying service. After the services ve been regularised he becomes a der the Government and is paid by ated in the Industrial Award dated en and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. h, Punjab, Patiala, which was azette dated July 14, 1972. Even by the Punjab Government Memo 6th February, 1973 (Annexure P7) work-charged employees who had ore as on 15th August, 1972, their been regularised. Once the service been regularised, there appears to m of the Pensionary benefits as are ts under rule 3.17 of the Rules. ean the protection of equal laws for Article 14 strike at arbitrariness rbitrary involves the negation of officiating service under the State d for determining the qualifying at the period of service spent by an blishment before his regularisation tion for determining his qualifying h is sought to be made among ligible for lesion and those who ees and their services regularised ot based on any intelligible criteria t law. After the services of a work ularised, he is a public servant like urt in s held n, the nefits. 3.17 t the aken ices es a d by ated .D. was ven emo P7) had heir vice rs to are ules. s for ness n of tate ying y an tion ying ong who ised teria rk - like PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP any oth and in reason to be s 8. rendered by t decided on 1 on part time pensionary b Court in LPA decided on 18 “This Judge the ben toward as Kes judgme employ entitled A is ex 17 P-12826-2017 and others connecte y other servant. To deprive him of d inequitable but is hit by the vice asons the provisions of sub rule (ii) be struck down being violative of A (emphasis added) Reliance in this regard can als ed by this Court in Zile Singh vs. Sta on 17.03.2015 wherein duration of t time, before regularisation, was o nary benefits. The same was also uphe LPA-426-2016 titled as State of Har d on 18.03.2016.The relevant part is re his appeal is directed against the dge dated 17.3.2015 holding the res e benefit of previous service rendere wards qualifying service as pension Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab an Learned counsel for the appel dgment refers to Rule 3.17 A to ployee was engaged on part time titled to have this service counted fo is extracted herebelow:- 3.17-A (1) Subject to the prov rules and except in the cases rendered on establishment, int count as qualifying service:- (i) Service rendered in work cha (ii) Service paid from contingen January, 1973 half of the servic be allowed to count towards pe in regular employment subject to (a) Service paid from con a job involving whole-ti time or for a portion of the ected matters of the pension is not only unjust vice of arbitrariness, and for these e (ii) of rule 3.17 of the Rules have of Article 14 of the Constitution.” an also be placed on the judgment State of Haryana in CWP-626-2015 on of services rendered by a sweeper was ordered to be counted towards o upheld by a Division Bench of this f Haryana and others vs. Zile Singh rt is reproduced below: the judgment of the learned Single e respondent – employee entitled to dered by him on work charge basis ion in terms of the Full Bench titled ab and others AIR 1988, P&H 265 ppellant while impugning the said to contend that the respondent time basis and would thus not be ed for qualifying service. Rule 3.17 provisions of rule 4.23 and other ases mentioned below, all service , interrupted or continuous, shall charged establishment. gencies: Provided that after the 1st ervice paid from contingencies will s pension at the time of absorption ect to the following conditions:- contingencies should have been in time employment (and not part f the day) just hese have .” gment 015 eeper wards of this ingh ngle d to asis itled 65. said ent- t be 3.17 ther vice hall e 1st will tion n in part PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 18 P-12826-2017 and others connecte (b) Service paid from con a type of work or job for been sanctioned e.g malis, (c) the service should h payment is made either computed and paid on a m not analogous to the reg some relation in the matte similar jobs being per establishment. (d) the service paid from continuos and followed employment without a bre Apparently service r establishment is included but ex portion of the day as is suggeste We find that the employee was e the year 1996 and his services w terms of the regularization po nothing on record to suggest being paid from contingencies a or raised before the writ Court. such a plea is raised before thi not permit. There is also nothin remotely suggest that the servic only for contingencies and if th to be seen it clearly defies such person can be engaged from 19 visualized to be a contingenc permanent. The ratio of the Ful (supra) has been correctly appli and thus we do not find any re appeal, particularly, when it unexplained delay of 318 days. dismissed.” ected matters contingencies should have been in for which regular post could have alis, chowkidars, khalasis etc. ld have been one for which the ither on monthly or daily rates n a monthly basis and which though regular scale of pay should bear atter of pay to those being paid for performed by staff in regular om contingencies should have been owed by absorption in regular break.” rendered in work charge t excluded if it is part time or for a ested by Rule 3.17 A(ii)(a). as engaged on work charge basis in es were regularized on 24.5.2013 in n policy applied to him. There is est that employee's services were ies as this issue was never pleaded ourt. It is only for the first time that e this Court in LPA which we shall othing on record which would even ervice of the employee was engaged if the long term of employment is uch a stand of the respondents. If a m 1996 till 2013 it could hardly be gency as the need evidently was Full Bench in Kesar Chand's case applied by the learned Single Judge y reason to interfere in the present n it is also barred by a large ays. Hence, instant appeal is hereby n in have the ates ugh bear for ular been ular arge or a is in 3 in e is ere ded that hall even aged nt is If a y be was case dge sent arge reby PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 9. the Punjab C provisions ca qualifying s contention th counted as th Division Ben that if an em scheme but governed by 19 P-12826-2017 and others connecte Further, the provisions of the R njab Civil Services Rules, particular ons call for casual or daily rated s ing service for the purpose of pe tion that the petitioners are not elig d as they have been regularised recen n Bench of this Court in Harbans La employee was appointed prior t but was regularised subsequent to ed by the old scheme. The following w “12. …We come to the conclu date of appointment after regu which employee takes charge service of a daily wager is to be then his date of appointment w date of appointment i.e. 1988 a pension scheme by applying t 28.3.2005 which is evidently a restructured defined Contributi force w.e.f. 1.1.2004. xxx xxx 15. This view has been followe Court in case of Hans Raj v. 2005(3) RSJ 262. In this case th Punjab Municipal Employees P Fund Rules, 1994. Vide instructi Punjab had provided that sinc made applicable in lieu of CPF, qualifying for pension has to b which the employee was con instructions were held contrary Division Bench. The Division instructions cannot substitute ected matters the Rules of 1994 are akin to that of ticularly Rule 3.17A. Both of these ated service to be counted towards of pensionary benefits. Thus, the t eligible to have their past service d recently deserves to be rejected. A s Lal (supra) has emphatically held rior to the introduction of the new ent to the same, he would still be wing was opined: nclusion that the petitioners' initial regularisation will be the date on arge of the post. Once the entire to be counted as qualifying service ent will relegate back to his initial 988 and he cannot be ousted from ing the date of regularisation i.e. tly after the new scheme or new ibution Pension Scheme came into xxx lowed by a Division Bench of this j v. State of Punjab and others, se the Division Bench examined the es Pension and General Provident ructions dated 8.1.1999, the State of since the Pension Rules has been PF, the period to be considered as to be restricted to the period for contributing to his CPF. These trary to the Pension Rules by the ision Bench held that the said tute or supplant the substantive hat of these wards s, the ervice ted. A y held e new till be itial e on ntire vice itial rom i.e. new into this ers, the dent te of been d as for hese the said tive PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 10. in Uday Prat through Justi 20 P-12826-2017 and others connecte provisions of the Pension Ru entitled to count his entire se qualifying service for the purp that qualifying service would contribution to the CPF, has Bench. 16. From the above discussion, that the entire daily wage servi till the date of his regularisation service for the purpose of pensi govt. service prior to 1.1.2004. Contribution Pension Scheme introduced for the new entran Service w.e.f. 01.01.2004, wi petitioner. The amendment mad the Punjab Civil Services Rules issuing clarification/instructions 3). The petitioner will continu Scheme and is held entitled to applicable to the employees r Services prior to 1.1.2004.” Pertinently, a two Judge Bench Pratap Thakur vs. State of Bihar 2 h Justice M.R Shah, made the followin “6.3 Now, insofar as the relian this Court in the case of Prem counsel appearing on behalf of reliance placed upon the said d In the said case, this Court was 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Be the entire service rendered as counted for qualifying service f has observed and held that af charged for number of years in / department, denying them th ected matters Rules. The petitioner was held e service from 1962 to 1998 as purpose of pension. The condition ould commence from the date of has been rejected by the Division ion, we have come to the conclusion service of the petitioner from 1988 ation is to be counted as qualifying ension. He will be deemed to be in 04. The new Re-structured Defined heme (Annexure P-1) has been trants in the Punjab Government , will not be applicable to the made vide Annexure P-2 amending ules, cannot be further amended by tions dated 30.5.2008 (Annexure P tinue to be governed by the GPF d to receive pensionary benefits as es recruited in the Punjab Govt. (emphasis added) Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ar 2023 INSC 461, while speaking llowing observations in this regard: eliance placed upon the decision of rem Singh (supra) by the learned f of the appellants is concerned, the id decision is absolutely misplaced. was considering the validity of Rule t Benefit Rules, 1961, under which as work charged was not to be ice for pension. To that, this Court after rendering service as work rs in the Government establishment m the pension on the ground that held as ition e of sion sion 988 ying e in ined been ent the ding d by e P- PF as ovt. dded) Court aking n of rned the ced. Rule hich be ourt ork ent that PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 11. their status a Harbans Lal purpose of pe 12. The responde 21 P-12826-2017 and others connecte they have not completed the q would be unjust, arbitrary and has observed and held that th charged shall be considered / c This Court has not observed a rendered as work charged shall quantum of pension / pension. T case of Prem Singh (supra), th the counting of service rendered service for pension.” The petitioners’ regularization a tatus as employees appointed prior t s Lal (supra), the date of initial ap e of pension. In view of the above, the prese spondents are directed to: (a) Count the entire service ren July 1994 (initial part-time a regularization as qualifying serv (b) Treat the petitioners as cover Fund Scheme applicable to 01.01.2004; and (c) Compute and release all con including arrears, within three m of a certified copy of this order. ected matters the qualifying service for pension and illegal. Therefore, this Court at their services rendered as work d / counted for qualifying service ed and held that the entire service hall be considered / counted for the n. The decision of this Court in the ), therefore, would be restricted to ered as work charged for qualifying (emphasis added) ation after 01.01.2004 does not alter prior to the cut-off date. As held in appointment relates back for the present writ petition is disposed of. ice rendered by the petitioners from time appointment) till the date of g service for pension; s covered under the General Provident e to employees recruited prior to all consequential pensionary benefits, three months from the date of receipt order. sion ourt ork vice. vice the the d to ying dded) t alter eld in or the ed of. from te of vident ior to nefits, eceipt PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP 13. 14. disposed of. 15. cases. December 22 P.C 22 P-12826-2017 and others connecte (d) Needless to say, when the entitled to pensionary benef 01.02.1994 as their date of appoi No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applica ed of. Photocopy of this order be place 22, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : ected matters en the petitioners retire, they shall be benefits as calculated by taking f appointment. pplications, if any, shall also stand e placed on the files of the connected (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No all be taking stand nected RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.31 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document