1 CWP-29313-2026 & CWP-29331-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 120+121 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 1. CWP-29313-2026 Jai Singh (LR Husband of late Chameli Devi) Jai Singh (LR Husband of late Chameli Devi) Jai Singh (LR Husband of late Chameli Devi) Jai Singh (LR Husband of late Chameli Devi) .....Petitioner VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS State State State State oooof f f f Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana aaaand nd nd nd Another Another Another Another ….Respondents 2. CWP-29331-2026 Kashmir Singh Kashmir Singh Kashmir Singh Kashmir Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS State State State State oooof f f f Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana aaaand nd nd nd Another Another Another Another ….Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. S.K. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in both the cases. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. AG Haryana. Mr. H.S. Oberoi, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP- 29331-2026. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) 1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP- 29313-2026. 2. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the PARUL VERMA 2026.09.11 17:33 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 2 CWP-29313-2026 & CWP-29331-2026 respondents to allot a GPF account number to the late wife of the petitioner, namely, Late Chameli Devi, Ex-Sweeper, and to extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, including pension/pensionary benefits and arrears of pension/family pension, by taking into consideration her part-time service followed by regular service. Alternatively, a direction is sought to the respondents to decide the advance notice dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-8) by passing a speaking order within a stipulated period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP-29313-2026, inter alia, contends that the wife of petitioner was appointed as part-time Sweeper on 25.08.1984 (Annexure P-1). Her services were regularized on 21.05.2012 (Annexure P-2). She retired on 30.09.2017 after continuously serving for 34 years. The late wife of the petitioner was not granted any pension or pensionary benefits. She approached this Court by filing CWP-13451-2019 seeking antedate regularization and the said matter was disposed of on 20.05.2019 with direction to the respondent for deciding her legal notice dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-4). When the claim was not considered she filed COCP-831-2020 and during the pendency of the said contempt proceedings, the respondents regularized her services w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and the contempt was disposed of with liberty to challenge the order. The late wife of the petitioner filed representation, however, she unfortunately passed away. The petitioner has served legal notice dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-8) and he relies upon judgment rendered by this Court in LPA LPA LPA LPA----1892 1892 1892 1892----2019 2019 2019 2019 titled as State Of Haryana And Others Vs Jai Bhagwan State Of Haryana And Others Vs Jai Bhagwan State Of Haryana And Others Vs Jai Bhagwan State Of Haryana And Others Vs Jai Bhagwan and submits that pre- regularization of part-time service of his late wife is required to be counted for calculating qualifying service for pension. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme PARUL VERMA 2026.09.11 17:33 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 3 CWP-29313-2026 & CWP-29331-2026 Court have recently in Civil Civil Civil Civil AAAAppeal ppeal ppeal ppeal NNNNo. 6865 of 2022 o. 6865 of 2022 o. 6865 of 2022 o. 6865 of 2022 titled as Punjab Punjab Punjab Punjab School Education Board versus Satnam Singh School Education Board versus Satnam Singh School Education Board versus Satnam Singh School Education Board versus Satnam Singh has reiterated judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal vs. The State of Harbans Lal vs. The State of Harbans Lal vs. The State of Harbans Lal vs. The State of Punjab and others, 2010 SCC Online P&H 8181 Punjab and others, 2010 SCC Online P&H 8181 Punjab and others, 2010 SCC Online P&H 8181 Punjab and others, 2010 SCC Online P&H 8181 and Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab, 1988 SCC Online P&H 338 Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab, 1988 SCC Online P&H 338 Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab, 1988 SCC Online P&H 338 Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab, 1988 SCC Online P&H 338 and as such, case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgment rendered by this Court in CWP CWP CWP CWP----1048 1048 1048 1048----2016 2016 2016 2016 titled as Jai Bhagwan Vs State Of Haryana Jai Bhagwan Vs State Of Haryana Jai Bhagwan Vs State Of Haryana Jai Bhagwan Vs State Of Haryana And Ors And Ors And Ors And Ors and judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satnam Satnam Satnam Satnam Singh Singh Singh Singh (supra) (supra) (supra) (supra). 3.1. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP-29331- 2026, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Class IV employee on 07.02.1990 and was regularized on 18.12.2019 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 as is discernible from Annexures P-1 to P-3, respectively. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage submits that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to decide the legal notice dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-8) in CWP-29313-2026 and legal notice dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-4) in CWP-29331-2026 in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Jai Bhagwan (supra) and judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satnam Singh (supra) by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 5. Notice of motion. 6. Mr. Rahul Dev, Addl. AG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to hear and decide PARUL VERMA 2026.09.11 17:33 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 4 CWP-29313-2026 & CWP-29331-2026 the decide the legal notice(s) dated 16.03.2026, by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 7. In view of the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of and respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to hear and decide the decide the legal notices dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-8 in CWP- 29313-2026 and Annexure P-4 in CWP-29331-2026) filed by the petitioner in the light of above-cited supra judgments in a time bound manner and pass a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted to him forthwith by respondent No.2/competent authority. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. 10. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected case(s). (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 10.09.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PARUL VERMA 2026.09.11 17:33 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment