120+121+123+127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) CWP-28141-2026 Date of decision: 02.09.2026 Sarti and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 2) CWP-28142-2026 Indrawati @ Indra ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 3) CWP-28155-2026 Miyan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 4) CWP-28189-2026 Rajender Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Bishan Dass Rana, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-28141-2026; CWP-28142-2026 & CWP-28155-2026). Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Malik, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-28189-2026). Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl.A.G., Haryana. NEHA 2026.09.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-28141-2026 and connected cases -2- HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. With the consent of parties, this common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-28141-2026. 2. The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners under the Old Pension Scheme (GPF Scheme) as the petitioners have served the department for more than 3 to 4 decades in view of the official orders and judgment dated 09.07.2026 (Annexure P-17). Further, directing the respondents to pay the entire pensionary benefits to the petitioners by counting part time services for retiral benefits, under the Old Pension Scheme since they have retired along with interest @ 18% per annum as the petitioners have retired from their services after putting more than decades of service in part time as well as regular employee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia contends that the petitioners joined service as part-time Sweepers in the year 1981 and their services were regularized on 08.09.2014. Petitioner No.1 retired on 30.06.2017 after rendering more than 36 years of service, whereas, petitioner No.2 retired on 31.12.2023 after rendering 42 years of service. The Government of Haryana introduced the New Pension Scheme vide notification dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure P-2) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 for the employees who joined service on or after the stipulated date. The petitioners had been appointed much prior to NEHA 2026.09.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-28141-2026 and connected cases -3- 01.01.2006, yet they have not been granted pension under the Old Pension Scheme. 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2371 of 2010 titled Harbans Lal Vs. The State of Punjab and others, decided on 31.08.2010 (Annexure P-3), and the Special Leave Petition, whereby the aforesaid judgment was upheld upon dismissal of the SLP on 30.07.2012 (Annexure P-4) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1892 of 2019 titled State of Haryana and others Vs. Jai Bhagwan, decided on 26.07.2024 (Annexure P-12), has concluded that the pre- regularization service rendered as a part-time employee is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating qualifying service under the Old Pension Scheme. As such, the claim of the petitioner(s) is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal’s case (supra) and Jai Bhagwan’s case (supra), both of which have been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the petitioners served a legal notices dated 18.07.2025 in CWP-28141-2026; 25.10.2025 in CWP-28142-2026; 21.09.2025 in CWP- 28155-2026 (Annexure P-13) and advance notice dated 16.07.2026 in CWP- 28189-2026 (Annexure P-6), which remained unheeded. 3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notices (Annexure P-13) and advance notice (Annexure P- 6) of the petitioner(s) are decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner in light of the judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal’s case (supra) and Jai Bhagwan’s case (supra). NEHA 2026.09.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-28141-2026 and connected cases -4- 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) on the ground that petitioner No.1 retired on 30.06.2017 and, as such, his claim after a delay of about nine years is required to be restricted in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 , in case a favourable order is passed. 4.1. He further submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notices of the petitioner(s) by passing a speaking order. 5. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s), respondent No.2 is directed to consider the legal notices dated 18.07.2025 in CWP-28141-2026; 25.10.2025 in CWP-28142-2026; 21.09.2025 in CWP-28155-2026 (Annexure P-13) and advance notice dated 16.07.2026 in CWP-28189-2026 (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner(s) in light of the judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal’s case (supra) and Jai Bhagwan’s case (supra) and pass a speaking order, after affording them an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner(s). Needless to say, if the petitioner(s) is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2. 6. Disposed of, accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 02.09.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NEHA 2026.09.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh