LPA-1622-2026 (O&M) & connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (117) CM-3967-LPA-2026 CM-3966-LPA-2026 CM-3968-LPA-2026 CM-3969-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1622-2026 Date of Decision : July 01, 2026 Municipal Council, Raman, District Bhatinda .. Appellant Versus Sunehra Ram and others .. Respondents (134) CM-4105-LPA-2026 & CM-4106-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1687-2026 Nagar Panchayat (Municipal Committee), Bhikhi .. Appellant Versus Prem Sagar and others .. Respondents (138) CM-4131-LPA-2026 & CM-4132-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1697-2026 Market Committee Rajpura Through its Secretary .. Appellant Versus Nidhan Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Ms. Anannya Nayyar, Advocate, for the appellant (in LPA-1622-2026). Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Chandan Singh, Advocate, for the appellant (in LPA-1687-2026), Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocate, for the appellant (in LPA-1697-2026). HARSHA RANI 2026.07.08 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1622-2026 (O&M) & connected cases HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) CM-3967-LPA-2026 and CM-3968-LPA-2026 in LPA-1622-2026 Present applications have been filed seeking condonation of delay of 35 days in filing and 28 days in re-filing the appeal. Keeping in view the averments made in the applications, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the applications are allowed. Delay of 35 days in filing and 28 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM-4105-LPA-2026 in LPA-1687-2026 Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 105 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM-4131-LPA-2026 in LPA-1697-2026 Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 145 days in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 145 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA-1622-2026 (O&M) & connected cases 1. By this common order, three appeals, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as all these appeals involve the same question of law on similar facts. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from LPA No.1622 of 2026. 2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.158 of 2026 by HARSHA RANI 2026.07.08 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1622-2026 (O&M) & connected cases which, direction has been given to take into consideration the total length of service including the adhoc service as well as the part time service rendered for 14 years to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of computing the pensionary benefits. 3. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant was asked to as to how, the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is perverse keeping in view the settled principle of law. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants have not been able to rebut that as per the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others', AIR 1988 P&H 265, the past service rendered on daily wage service is to be counted for computing the pensionary benefits. 5. Similarly, even the part time service which continued for decades, has been held to be a valid qualifying service by this Court in CWP No.10238 of 2017 titled as Jeewan Lata vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 10.05.2019. 6. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2371 of 2010 titled as Harbans Lal Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 31.08.2010 has held that even where an employee who was working on temporary basis at the time of the promulgation of New Pension Scheme, even if his/her services have been regularized thereafter, he/she will be considered under the Old Pension Scheme, the service rendered prior to regularization temporary/part time service rendered prior to the regularization is to be treated as valid qualifying service for computing the HARSHA RANI 2026.07.08 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1622-2026 (O&M) & connected cases pensionary benefits. The decision given by the learned Single Judge is perfectly valid and legal. 7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered the said issue in Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2019 titled as Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, on 02.09.2019. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 32 and 33 of the said judgment are reproduced herein below: “32. The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such service to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. We find that once regularization had been made on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. It would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in Note to Rule 3(8) of 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two temporary or in-between temporary and permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work- charged period in case it has been rendered before regularisation. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting HARSHA RANI 2026.07.08 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1622-2026 (O&M) & connected cases period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work-charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification. 33. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make the Rule 3(8) valid and non discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non- pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment.” 8. Further, the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1048 of 2016, titled Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 01.03.2019, has attained finality, having been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in which, it was observed that: “ It is a matter of fact that the petitioner worked on part time basis continuously for 20 years. A person is engaged on part time only for a specific job and for specified period. It cannot be said that an employee, who is working continuously for 20 years as Peon in school, was a part time job. The said service is to be treated as a long term employment for all intents and purposes.” 9. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has not been able to dispute the said settled principles of law which are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case 10. No other argument has been raised. 11. As learned counsel for the appellant(s) has failed to show that the judgment dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is HARSHA RANI 2026.07.08 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1622-2026 (O&M) & connected cases perverse either on facts or on law, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 13. Any civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of. 14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 01, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2026.07.08 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document