Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raman Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063242
CWP-1400-2022 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
257
CWP-1400-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 07.05.2024
Raman Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, AAG Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing the impugned order
dated 28.12.2021, vide which the claim of the petitioner for counting of the
service rendered by him prior to regularisation for the purposes of pensionary
service, have been rejected.
2. Learned counsel submits that the period of service rendered by the
petitioner as Chowidar on part-time basis from 1994, which was regularised on
02.07.2014, has not been counted as qualifying service for grant of benefit under
the Old Pension Scheme. Notice of motion in the present case was issued by
placing reliance on the judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case
of Jeewan Lata vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2019 (3) PLR 474 and
Jasvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others in CWP-5532-2015, decided on
01.02.2017, which were decided in the case of Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab
and others, CWP-2371-2010, on 31.08.2010. against which the SLP as well as
the Review Application were dismissed on 30.07.2012 and 04.11.2015
respectively. Following the above and considering Rule 3.17 of Punjab Civil
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063242
CWP-1400-2022 (O&M) - 2-
Services Rules as well, this Court allowed CWP-14728-2018, titled as Babunji
Bhagat vs. State of Punjab and others, on 01.02.2023, a case of a Class IV
employee, who worked from May, 1995 to 2001 as Daily Wage Cook but was
given a fresh appointment on 15.10.2010, thus the New Defined Contributory
Pension Fund Scheme was made applicable, held him to be governed under the
Old Pension Rules, being in service prior to 01.01.2004. Likewise, in Jeewan
Lata (supra), a part time sweeper was granted the benefit as being claimed by the
petitioners herein, relevant paras whereof read thus:
"The question of law as to whether an employee, whose
services were regularised after 01-01-2004, will be governed
by the New Pension Scheme or the Old Pension Scheme is well
settled and has already attained finality up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India. The Division Bench of this Court
while deciding CWP No. 2371 of 2010 titled as Harbans Lal
Vrs. State of Punjab & Ors. decided on 31-08-2010 has held
that an employee who was in service as on 01-01-2004 though
his services might have been regularised after the said date, is
to be governed under the Old Pension Scheme. The relevant
portion of the judgment is as under:-
From the above discussion, we have come to the
conclusion that the entire daily wage service of the
petitioner from 1988 till the date of his regularization is
to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of
pension. He will be deemed to be in govt. Service prior
to 01.01.2004. The new Re-structured Defined
Contribution Pension Scheme (Annexure P-1) has been
introduced for the new entrants in the Punjab
Government Service w.e.f. 01.01.2004, will not be
applicable to the petitioner. The amendment made vide
Annexure P-2 amending the Punjab Civil Service Rules,
cannot be further amended by issuing
clarification/instructions dated 30.05.2008 (Annexure P-
3) The petitioner will continue to be governed by the
GPF Scheme and is held entitled to receive pensionary
benefits as applicable to the employees recruited in the
Punjab Govt. Services prior to 01.01.2004.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063242
CWP-1400-2022 (O&M) - 3-
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
Accordingly, respondents are directed to treat the whole
period of work charge service as qualified service for
pension because accordingly to clarification issued on
30.05.2008 (Annexure P-3), the new defined
Contributory Pension Scheme would be applicable to all
those employees who have been working prior to
01.01.2004 but have been regularized thereafter. Let his
pension and arrears be calculated and paid to him
expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
The above said judgment has already attained finality up to
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as the Special Leave
Petition filed against the said judgment by the State of Punjab
has already been dismissed. Therefore, the first objection
which the respondents have taken to deny the petitioner the
benefit of pension on the ground that the petitioner will be
governed by the New Contributory Provident Funds Scheme
holds no ground and is liable to be rejected.
The second objection which has been taken by the
respondents is that even if the Old Pension Scheme is
applicable upon the petitioner, keeping in view provisions of
the Rule 3.17 A, the service rendered by the petitioner on part
time basis cannot be counted as qualifying service for the grant
of pensionary benefits. The said Rule has already been
interpreted by this Court while deciding CWP No. 626 of 2015
titled Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others on 17.03.2015
wherein also a similar question of law arose. In the said case
also the employees working on part time basis, were seeking
the benefit of the part time service to be treated as a qualifying
service for the grant of pensionary benefits. After relying upon
the judgment in Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others,
this Court while deciding CWP No. 626 of 2015, on
17.03.2015, held that once an employee has worked with the
respondents though on part time basis, and the said part time
service has been taken into account for regularisation of service
of an employee, the benefit of said service, cannot be denied to
be counted as a qualifying service for the grant of pensionary
benefits. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:-
xx xx xx
Against the said order LPA No. 426 of 2016 was filed by the
Government of Haryana and vide order dated 18.03.2016, after
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063242
CWP-1400-2022 (O&M) - 4-
noticing the provision of Rule 3.17A, the Division Bench held
that only a short term part time employment and that too under
a specific contingency, has to be ignored while computing the
pensionary benefits. The Division Bench held that where an
employee has worked for a long time and continuously, which
is more than a decade, the same cannot be treated as a part time
engagement, and cannot be ignored while computing the
pensionary benefits. The relevant portion of the judgment of
the Division Bench is as under:-
xx xx xx
The question of law as to whether, the part time service is to
be counted for computing the pensionary benefits again came
up for consideration before this Court in CWP No. 1048 of
2016 titled as Jai Bhagwan Vrs. State of Haryana & Others,
decided on 01.03.2019. In the said case also, keeping in view
the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Zile Singh's Case
(Supra) as well the order passed in LPA No. 426 of 2016, the
benefit of the service which an employee had rendered on part
time basis continuously for more than 20 years was allowed to
be computed as a qualifying service. The relevant portion of
the judgment is as under:-
"I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that once the
petitioner had rendered service on part time basis
starting from 06.08.1992 till 27.02.2012, the same is
liable to be counted as a qualifying service for the grant
of pensionary benefits. Counsel for the petitioner further
contends that though the petitioner was working on part
time basis, but as he worked for about 20 years, it cannot
be said that he discharged the duties on part time basis.
Further, as the petitioner was working as Peon in a
school, it cannot be said that he was discharging the
duties part time and the same has to be considered a
regular employment for all intents and purposes.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents states
that once the appointment was made on part time basis,
the same cannot be considered as a qualifying service in
view of the provisions of Section 3.17 (A) of the CSR
Vol-II, according to which, part time service cannot be
treated as a qualifying service.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063242
CWP-1400-2022 (O&M) - 5-
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.
A Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand's case
(supra) has held that daily wage service, followed by
regularization of the services, is to be counted as a
qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits.
Once, the daily wage service is to be counted as a
qualifying service, it cannot be said that continuous
appointment rendered by the petitioner for 20 years
though as part time basis, is less than the daily wage
service rendered by an employee. There is no
justification given by the respondents to deny the said
benefit, except the Rule 3.17 (A). The said Rule has
already been considered in Kesar Chand's case (supra)
and it has been held that the daily wage service followed
by the regular service is good enough to be treated as
qualifying service for computing the pensionary
benefits. Therefore, the service which the petitioner has
rendered for 20 years as a Peon from 06.08.1992 till
27.02.2012 cannot be ignored for computing the
pensionary benefits of the petitioner."
The case of the petitioner is covered by the above said
judgment.
Learned State counsel, has not been able to differentiate the
case of the petitioner from the judgments which have been
cited above to prove that the petitioner is not entitled for the
benefits of counting her part time service as a qualifying
service after the services of the petitioner were regularized.
In view of the above, the second objection which has been
raised by the respondents that the part time service rendered by
the petitioner from 1984 till 25.10.2010 cannot be counted as a
qualifying service is liable to be rejected. As the objections
raised by the Counsel for the respondents to deny the benefits
are contrary to the settled principle of law and have already
been rejected, petitioner is held entitled to the grant of the
pensionary benefits on total length of her service under Old
Pension Scheme.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063242
CWP-1400-2022 (O&M) - 6-
The Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to
treat the case of the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme
for the grant of pensionary benefits and while considering the
case for the grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner under
the Old Pension Scheme, the service rendered by the petitioner
from 1984 till 2010 shall also be treated as a qualifying service
for computing the pensionary benefits. Let the calculations of
the pensionary benefits be done by the respondents within a
period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of
this order and whatever amount the petitioner is found entitled
for after the calculations shall be released to the petitioner
within a period of next two months."
3. Learned State counsel has been unable to controvert the factual
position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or
cite any contrary law.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of in
terms of Harbans Lal, Jeewan Lata and Babunji Bhagat (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
07.05.2024
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
6 of 6
