!" /! ( /0/ 2243 ( 2//,8 4 223 527 5 1 learned State 0/ 5 : ; 8// / !"#$%&' ()* +,' # ("( (-/<61 (=0<-=<( 3 0/ /12345/61 3527</>235/ & 1/2 // 093/1 /61/ 4 527 ;:(:( : :(+2 /10/ &; :< !"# 1 :(: ( :< covers the State counsel has not been 2 4 3 /16 / 131324<relevant pa : ;?@ A -1/!:(:( : ((((/ (((/0/ #"*-". 0/( ( 0 / 15 6130/ /610/3/( 0/ / 162 5<&< 7 (:( ::; 2345/61/2243 2/ "# $% & '"!()*) + their case on all fours, which 2 16 5/ 12 /01/ vant paras thereof reads thus: PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.10 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. : ; “1. The instant appeal directed against the commo passed by the learned Single the writ petitioner- responden service rendered by him, as purposes of pension and ot Single Judge has followed th Bench of this Court (of whic was a member) in the case o State of Punjab and others decided on 25.7.2008) whic wage employees. They have service as daily wage emplo regularisation. 2. The argument whic on Rule 3.17-A of the Pu Volume-II (for brevity, 'the R appellant-State in Sadhu Si same was rejected in para 6 o thus:- "6. We have heard lear and have perused the assistance. The question to the work charged, employees is no longe such an employee has then his whole service daily wage and ad ho pension and other reti reference is made to Ru appropriate to mention Court in the case of Kes 1988 (2) PLR 223, has Rules as ultra vires of th the effect that only substantive permanent qualifying service. The o Bench read as under:- "Once the services o have been regularised any logic to deprive h as are available to oth 3.17 of the Rules. Eq mean the protection o similarly situated. Art because a provision w negation of equality appeal by the State of Punjab is ommon judgment dated 16.8.2010 Single Judge allowing the claim of ondent for counting the daily wage im, as qualifying service, for the nd other retiral benefits. Learned wed the view taken by a Division f which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. case of Sadhu Singh and others v. others (CWP No. 18841 of 2007, ) which was also a case of daily have put in more than 14 years of employees which was followed by t which has now been raised, based the Punjab Civil Services Rules, , 'the Rules') was also raised by the hu Singh's case (supra) and the ara 6 of the judgment, which reads rd learned counsel at some length d the paper book with their able uestion regarding grant of pension arged, daily wage and ad hoc longer subject of controversy. If e has been regularised in service ervice rendered on work charged, ad hoc basis would qualify for er retiral benefits. In that regard to Rule 3.17-A of the Rules. It is ention that a Full Bench of this of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 3, has declared Rule 3.17 of the s of the Constitution, which was to only service rendered against a anent post would count as . The observation made by the Full ices of a work charged employee larised, there appears to be hardly rive him of the pensionary benefits to other public servants under rule les. Equal protection of laws must n of equal laws for all persons d. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness sion which is arbitrary involves the quality. Even the temporary or PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.10 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3. judgment pas :(:( : 06B : ; officiating service und to be reckoned for service. It looks to b service spent by an e establishment before been taken into consi qualifying service. T sought to be made a who are eligible for p as work charged em regularised subseque based on any intelligi not sustainable at law charged employees ha public servant like an him of the pension inequitable but is hit and for these reasons rule 3.17 of the Rul being violative of Arti 3. The Division Bench the Rules and has held that t Rule 3.17-A are based on the Bench of this Court in the ca Punjab, 1988 (2) PLR 223. the writ petition with 12% i 4. Having heard learn the view that the matter i Division Bench judgment of Singh's case (supra) and the commit any error of law by no merit in the appeal. Dismi The present petition is, accordin nt passed in Ram Singh (supra). /0B5C/!./C# 02 !./C# ; ice under the State Government has d for determining the qualifying s to be illogical that the period of y an employee in a work charged before his regularisation has not consideration for determining his ice. The classification which is ade among Government servants e for pension and those who started ed employees and their services sequently, and the others is not telligible criteria and, therefore, is at law. After the services of a work ees have been regularized, he is a like any other servant. To deprive ension is not only unjust and it by the vice of arbitrariness, asons the provisions of rule (ii) of e Rules have to be struck down of Article 14 of the Constitution." Bench also noticed Rule 3.17-A of that the principles incorporated in on the dicta laid down by the Full case of Kesar Chand v. State of 223. The Division Bench allowed interest (P-2). d learned State counsel we are of atter is squarely covered by the ent of this Court rendered in Sadhu d the learned Single Judge did not w by following that view. There is Dismissed.” ccordingly, disposed of in terms of PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.10 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.