LPA-847-2025 (O&M) 127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT K.L. SHEORAN STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., Haryana. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, 1. The appellant/writ petitioner has come up before this Court assailing the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Single Judge Judge has denied the petitioner the benefit of pensionable services for the period where he served 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the private aided institutions were treated to be governed by the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 1999 with effect from 11.05.1998, and t to work or serve in the private institution, he would have been drawing pension, and his services would have been pensionable. He submits that therefore his services should be counted for the purpose of pension. 3. We find that the petitioner had been appointed in a private institution on 10.08.1981 where he worked up to 24.03.1989, whereafter he joined the State services. 2025 (O&M) p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH K.L. SHEORAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) The appellant/writ petitioner has come up before this Court assailing the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Single Judge Judge has denied the petitioner the benefit of pensionable services for the period where he served with private institution. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the private aided institutions were treated to be governed by the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 1999 with effect from 11.05.1998, and thus, if the petitioner would have continued to work or serve in the private institution, he would have been drawing pension, and his services would have been pensionable. He submits that therefore his services, which he rendered from 10.08.1981 to 24.03.1989 should be counted for the purpose of pension. We find that the petitioner had been appointed in a private institution on 10.08.1981 where he worked up to 24.03.1989, whereafter he joined the State services. The period during which he had served in the private IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-847-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.03.2025 . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., Haryana. J.(Oral) The appellant/writ petitioner has come up before this Court assailing the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Single Judge, whereby the Single Judge has denied the petitioner the benefit of pensionable services for the with private institution. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the private aided institutions were treated to be governed by the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 1999 with hus, if the petitioner would have continued to work or serve in the private institution, he would have been drawing pension, and his services would have been pensionable. He submits that which he rendered from 10.08.1981 to 24.03.1989, should be counted for the purpose of pension. We find that the petitioner had been appointed in a private institution on 10.08.1981 where he worked up to 24.03.1989, whereafter he joined the The period during which he had served in the private 2025 (O&M) .2025 Appellant s The appellant/writ petitioner has come up before this Court assailing the whereby the Single Judge has denied the petitioner the benefit of pensionable services for the Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the private aided institutions were treated to be governed by the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 1999 with hus, if the petitioner would have continued to work or serve in the private institution, he would have been drawing pension, and his services would have been pensionable. He submits that , We find that the petitioner had been appointed in a private institution on 10.08.1981 where he worked up to 24.03.1989, whereafter he joined the The period during which he had served in the private MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.24 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-847-2025 (O&M) college was not pensionable at that relevant time. It is much later in point of time that the employees of the aided institutions were granted benefit of pension and contributory provident fund scheme o of Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 1999 which were made effective from 11.05.1998. 4. The Single Judge has noticed that the Rules came into force from the said date, and thus, they were not made the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to 11.05.1998 would not be said to be pensionable service, and the same therefore could not have been counted for the purpose of counting total period of service as for pension purpose. 5. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot be said to be in any manner unjustified. No interference of this Court is therefore warranted. Appeal stands accordingly 6. All pending applications also stand di 24.03.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2025 (O&M) p. 2 college was not pensionable at that relevant time. It is much later in point of time that the employees of the aided institutions were granted benefit of pension and contributory provident fund scheme o Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 1999 which were made effective from 11.05.1998. The Single Judge has noticed that the Rules came into force from the said date, and thus, they were not made retrospective. In the circumstances, the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to 11.05.1998 would not be said to be pensionable service, and the same therefore could not have been counted for the purpose of counting total period of service as for pension purpose. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot be said to be in any manner unjustified. No interference of this Court is therefore warranted. Appeal stands accordingly dismissed All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No college was not pensionable at that relevant time. It is much later in point of time that the employees of the aided institutions were granted benefit of pension and contributory provident fund scheme on the promulgation Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 1999 which were made effective from 11.05.1998. The Single Judge has noticed that the Rules came into force from the said retrospective. In the circumstances, the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to 11.05.1998 would not be said to be pensionable service, and the same therefore could not have been counted for the purpose of counting total period of service as The order passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot be said to be in any manner unjustified. No interference of this Court is therefore dismissed. sposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No college was not pensionable at that relevant time. It is much later in point of time that the employees of the aided institutions were granted benefit n the promulgation Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) The Single Judge has noticed that the Rules came into force from the said retrospective. In the circumstances, the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to 11.05.1998 would not be said to be pensionable service, and the same therefore could not have been counted for the purpose of counting total period of service as The order passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot be said to be in any manner unjustified. No interference of this Court is therefore MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.24 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document