[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Garg vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104+222
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.12.2025
Parveen Garg .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
CM-14475-CWP-2025
1. This application has been filed by the petitioner for placing
on record replication to the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2.
2. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.
3. Office is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
CWP-8718-2023
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for
directing the respondents to consider the regular service of the
petitioner in Electronic Systems Punjab Limited (hereinafter referred to
as 'ESPL') from 12.02.1987 to 27.09.2004 and contractual service in the
Department of Information Technology, Punjab from 27.09.2004 to
31.03.2011, for the purpose of computing pension and other pensionary
benefits such as leave encashment, gratuity and commutation of
1 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -2-
pension, etc. Further, prayer has been made to recompute leave
encashment, gratuity and commutation of pension after taking into
account the above-said service and to release the remaining dues/arrears
of leave encashment, gratuity and commutation of pension along with
interest at the rate of 18% from the date of retirement i.e. 31.08.2021
till its realisation.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner
joined the department of ESPL, a Punjab State Government Enterprise
(PSU) on 12.02.1987 on regular basis against a sanctioned post as
Assistant Manager. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent on deputation to
the Department of Information Technology, Punjab, as System Manager
on 17.05.1999 and his tenure was extended on annual basis without any
interruption or break. Further, he was offered appointment as Senior
System Manager-cum-Senior Consultant on contract basis in the
Department of Information Technology, Punjab, vide appointment letter
dated 28.11.2003 (Annexure P-2). Subsequently, ESPL, a PSU, was
wound up by the State in the year 2004 and the said appointment letter
was re-validated vide appointment letter dated 24.09.2004. Thereafter,
the State of Punjab created a new department i.e. Department of
Governance Reforms, vide Allocation of Business Rules (1st
Amendment), 2012 dated 16.03.2012. After the report of two members
committee of Directors of Department of Information Technology and
Department of Governance Reforms (constituted by Chief Secretary)
for sharing/transfer of manpower/assets/liabilities etc., the Hon'ble
Chief Minister approved the shifting of 12 employees of Department of
Information Technology to Department of Governance Reforms,
2 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -3-
Punjab, vide order dated 22.05.2012. In pursuance thereto, the
department of Information Technology, vide order dated 28.06.2012
relieved the petitioner along with other officers from the department of
Information Technology to join the Department of Governance
Reforms. Thereafter, services of the petitioner were regularised on the
post of Senior System Manager, vide order dated 11.06.2013, in terms
of regularisation policy dated 21.11.2011. The petitioner submitted
representation dated 07.01.2019 with a reminder dated 27.06.2019, to
the Director, Department of Governance Reforms, Punjab, seeking
regularisation with effect from 01.04.2011 in parity with Sh. Anwar,
Assistant Manager, who was similarly situated like the present
petitioner. When no action was taken on the said representation, the
petitioner filed CWP No.4854 of 2020 claiming the benefit of
regularisation with effect from 01.04.2011. The said writ petition came
up for hearing before this Court on 24.02.2020 and the following order
was passed:-
"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Let two copies of the writ petition be handed over to
Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab, during the
course of the day under proper receipt, who shall seek
instructions from the respondents as to whether any
decision has been taken upon the representation dated
07.01.2019 (Annexure P-11) and reminder dated
27.06.2019 (Annexure P-12) submitted by the petitioner
and if such a decision has been taken, copy thereof be
produced in Court on the next date of hearing. If decision
has yet not been taken, the needful be so done prior to the
next date of hearing and order be produced in Court."
3. The said claim of the petitioner was accepted by the
respondents vide order dated 06.07.2021/14.07.2021 (Annexure P-3) by
observing that the case of the petitioner is at par with Sh. Anwar, as
3 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -4-
both of them were transferred as per letter dated 21.11.2011 of the
Personnel Department, so the services of the petitioner were also
regularised with effect from 01.04.2011 in view of the representation
submitted by the petitioner and order passed by the High Court in CWP
No.4854 of 2020. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
was disposed of being rendered infructuous vide order dated
27.05.2022 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the petitioner retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2021 and
requested the respondent-department for counting the regular service of
the petitioner rendered in ESPL from 12.02.1987 to 27.09.2004 and
contractual service rendered in the Department of Information
Technology, Punjab from 27.09.2004 to 31.03.2011. However, when no
action was taken by the respondents, he got served a legal notice dated
09.01.2023 (Annexure P-5), through his counsel, but to no avail.
Hence, the present writ petition.
4. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Girish Dayalan, IAS,
Special Secretary and Director, Department of Governance Reforms
and Public Grievances, Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali, on behalf of
respondents No.1 and 2 has been filed wherein the facts stated
hereinabove have not been disputed, however, it has been stated that
the services of the petitioner were regularised as per instructions dated
21.11.2011 and in the said instructions, it was clearly mentioned that no
benefit of the previous service (notional or otherwise) shall be given to
any official and even in the order dated 13.06.2013, vide which the
services of the petitioner were regularised, it was mentioned that the
petitioner will not be granted any benefit (notional or otherwise) of his
4 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -5-
past service. The relevant portion from the reply is as under:-
"4. That the services of the petitioner were regularized
w.e.f dated 01.04.2011 as per the instructions dated
21.11.2011 issued by the Government of Punjab. In the
said instructions, it is clearly mentioned that the no benefit
for the previous service (notional or otherwise) shall be
given to any official. It is noteworthy that even in the order
dated 13.06.2013 vide which the services of the petitioner
were regularized, it was mentioned that the petitioner will
not be granted any benefits (notional or otherwise) of his
past services. Thus, claim of the petitioner for considering
regular service rendered by the him in Electronic System
Punjab Ltd from 12.2.87 to 27.9.2004 and contractual
service in Department of Information Technology from the
27.9.2004 to 31.3.2011 for purpose of commuting pension
and other retiral benefits such as leave encashment and
Gratuity etc. is not tenable. A true copy of the order dated
11.6.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1. and its
true translation is attached herewith as Annexure R-1/T.
5. That as per the provisions of Rule 3.17 and 3.17A,
the contractual services are not countable for pensionary
benefits. Further, there is no correlation between the
'regular service rendered by the petitioner in the erstwhile
ESPL' and the 'contractual service rendered in
Department of Information Technology. The petitioner
rendered his services from 12.02.87 to 03.09.2004 in
ESPL, which was a Public Sector Undertaking and the
same was not Government Department. The above said
PSU was wound up by the Govt in the 2004. The petitioner
was appointed as System Manager in the Department of
Information Technology vide appointment letter dated
28.11.2003, The same was revalidated on 24.09.2004. The
petitioner joined the department on 27.09.2004. So, the
former regular service was in the ESPL, a PSU. Thus,
service rendered by the petitioner from 12.02.87 to
03.09.2004 in ESPL and his contractual service rendered
at the Department of IT cannot be considered as regular
service for pension and other benefits."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
past service rendered by the petitioner is liable to be counted for the
purpose of pension and other pensionary benefits as the petitioner has
served the ESPL, which is a PSU on regular basis against a sanctioned
post from 12.02.1987 to 27.09.2004 and thereafter, he was sent on
deputation on 17.05.1999 from ESPL to the Department of Information
5 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -6-
Technology, Punjab, as System Manager. Further, he was offered
appointment as Senior System Manager-cum-Senior Consultant in the
Department of Information Technology, Punjab, vide appointment letter
dated 28.11.2003 on contract basis, and subsequently, ESPL (a PSU),
was wound up by the State in the year 2004 and the said appointment
letter was re-validated vide appointment letter dated 24.09.2004 and in
pursuance to the representation submitted by the petitioner and order
passed by this High Court in CWP No.4854 of 2020, the services of the
petitioner have been regularised with effect from 01.04.2011. The
service rendered by the petitioner is continuous and there is no break in
service and the action taken by the respondents in not counting the said
period of service for the purpose of pension and other pensionary
benefits, is totally illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that in
view of the provisions of Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services
Rules, the past service rendered by the petitioner is liable to be counted.
He further submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered
by the judgments of this Court in CWP-2722 of 2013 - Yash Pal Singh
Rana v. The State of Punjab and others, decided on 05.02.2019;
CWP-12364 of 2021 - Sham Lal v. State of Punjab and others,
decided on 28.08.2024; CWP-3638 of 2023 - Jasdeep Singh Aulakh v.
State of Punjab and others, decided on 24.04.2024 and CWP-29667 of
2019 - Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, decided on
16.12.2024.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the claim of
the petitioner by stating that the services of the petitioner have been
regularised in terms of instructions dated 21.11.2011 and in the said
6 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -7-
instructions, it was clearly mentioned that no benefit of the previous
service (notional or otherwise) shall be given to any official and even in
the order dated 13.06.2013, vide which the services of the petitioner
were regularised, it was mentioned that the petitioner will not be
granted any benefit (notional or otherwise) of his past service.
Accordingly, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the present
petition.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. The only question which arises for consideration in the
present petition is as to whether the past service rendered by the
petitioner in ESPL (a PSU) from 12.02.1987 to 27.09.2004 and
contractual service in the Department of Information Technology,
Punjab from 27.09.2004 to 31.03.2011, is countable towards pension
and other pensionary benefits or not?
9. There is no dispute with regard to the service rendered by
the petitioner from 12.02.1987 to 27.09.2004 in ESPL, which is a PSU
and from 27.09.2004 to 31.03.2011 in the Department of Information
Technology. The ESPL has been wound up in the year 2004, and
thereafter, services of the petitioner were regularised with effect from
01.04.2011 by the State, in pursuance to the order passed by this Court
in CWP No.4854 of 2020. Thus, the service rendered by the petitioner
is continuous and uninterrupted.
10. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to give reference
of the relevant provisions of the Rules.
11. Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Volume
7 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -8-
II) deals with the counting of service rendered in an establishment and
provides that service rendered in an establishment would be counted as
qualifying service, if the employee has submitted resignation for taking
up another appointment and said resignation has been accepted.
12. Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules reads as
under: -
"Rule 3.17-A. (1) Subject to the provisions of rule
4.23 and other rules and except in the cases mentioned
below, all service rendered on establishment, interrupted
or continuous, shall count as qualifying service:-
(i) Omitted.
(ii) Omitted.
(iii) Casual or daily rated service.
(iv) Suspension adjudged as a specific penalty.
Note.- In cases where an officer dies or is permitted to
retire while under suspension will not be treated as an
interruption.
(v) Service preceding resignation except where
such resignation is allowed to be withdrawn
in public interest by the appointing authority
as provided in the relevant rules or where
such resignation has been submitted to take
up, with proper permission, another
appointment whether temporary or permanent
under the Government where service qualifies
for pension.
(vi) Joining time for which no allowances are
admissible under rules 9.1 and 9.15 of C.S.R.,
Volume I, Part I.
(vii) If any unauthorised leave of absence occurs in
continuation of authorized leave of absence
and if the post of the absentee has been
substantively filled up, the past service of the
absentee is forfeited.
(viii) Transfer to a non-qualifying service in an
establishment not under Government control
or if such transfer is not made by the
competent authority and transfer to service in
a grant-inaid school.
(A Government employee, who voluntarily
resigns qualifying service, cannot claim the
8 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -9-
benefit under this clause.)
(ix) Removal from public service for misconduct,
insolvency, inefficiency not due to age, or
failure to pass an examination will entail
forfeiture of the past service.
(x) Service rendered beyond the date of
retirement on superannuation in terms of rule
3.26 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I,
Part I.
(2) An interruption in the service of a Government
employee caused by wilful absence from duty or
unathorised absence without leave, shall entail forfeiture
of the past service.
(3) Wilful abstinence from performing duties by a
Government employee by resort to pen down strike shall
be deemed to be wilful absence from duty and shall also
entail forfeiture of the past service.
Note.- In the case of a Central Government employee who
is permanently transferred to the Punjab Government and
becomes subject to these rules, the pensionary benefits
admissible for service under Central Government would
be that admissible under the Government of India rules
and the liability for such benefits shall be allocated in
accordance with the prevalent orders.
Clarification (1).-Even after the introduction of rule
3.17(A) and deletion of rule 4.21 the following cases do
not entail forfeiture of past service:-
(a) authorised leave of absence;
(b) abolition of post or loss of appointment owing to
reduction in establishment.
("Post" or "appointment" means a post or
appointment service in which qualifies for pension).
(2) While counting such qualifying service for working out
aggregate service, the period of break in service shall be
omitted."
[Emphasis Supplied]
Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7.5 of PCS Rules provides that
resignation submitted for taking up another appointment with
Government, shall not entail forfeiture of past service, if there is
permission by Competent Authority. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7.5 of PCS
Rules is reproduced as below: -
9 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -10-
"A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if
it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission,
another appointment, whether temporary or permanent,
under the Government where service qualifies for
pension."
13. The said provisions have been interpreted by this Court in
Jasdeep Singh Aulakh's case (supra). In the said case, petitioner had
rendered service as Assistant Engineer from 1996 to 2004 in Punjab
State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'PSEB') and
thereafter he participated in the direct recruitment process of PCS
(Executive Branch) and was selected in 2004 and joined PCS
(Executive Branch) after submitting resignation to his parent
department i.e. PSEB, which was accepted and his pay was protected.
The relevant paras from the said judgment read as under: -
"10. From the perusal of above quoted Rules 3.17-A and
7.5 (2) of PCS Rules, it is quite evident that service
rendered with an establishment is counted for qualifying
service if an employee resigns with the permission of
Competent Authority and for the purpose of taking up
employment with Government. The respondent has failed
to controvert applicability of aforesaid Rule to petitioner
except pleading that instructions do not provide for
counting previous service.
11. It is settled proposition of law that instructions can
supplement statutory provisions but cannot supplant the
statutory provisions. The instructions cannot be contrary
to mandate of Rules. The said instructions are not under
challenge, however, being contrary to statutory provisions
as well as intent of beneficial scheme cannot detain this
Court.
12. The Supreme Court in Shree Bhagwati Steel
Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise and
another, (2016) 3 SCC 643, has observed that Rules or
Regulations which are ultra vires though not challenged
may be ignored. The relevant extracts of the judgment read
as:
"28. Shri Aggarwal in order to buttress his
submission that he ought to be allowed to raise a
pure question of law going to the very jurisdiction to
levy interest, cited before us the judgment in
Bharathidasan University v. All-India Council for
10 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -11-
Technical Education [Bharathidasan University v.
All-India Council for Technical Education, (2001) 8
SCC 676 : 1 SCEC 924] and in particular para 14
thereof which reads as follow: (SCC pp. 688- 89)
"14. The fact that the Regulations may have
the force of law or when made have to be laid
down before the legislature concerned does
not confer any more sanctity or immunity as
though they are statutory provisions
themselves. Consequently, when the power to
make Regulations is confined to certain limits
and made to flow in a well-defined canal
within stipulated banks, those actually made
or shown and found to be not made within its
confines but outside them, the courts are
bound to ignore them when the question of
their enforcement arises and the mere fact
that there was no specific relief sought for to
strike down or declare them ultra vires,
particularly when the party in sufferance is a
respondent to the lis or proceedings cannot
confer any further sanctity or authority and
validity which it is shown and found to
obviously and patently lack. It would,
therefore, be a myth to state that the
Regulations made under Section 23 of the Act
have 'constitutional' and legal status, even
unmindful of the fact that any one or more of
them are found to be not consistent with
specific provisions of the Act itself. Thus, the
Regulations in question, which AICTE could
not have made so as to bind universities/UGC
within the confines of the powers conferred
upon it, cannot be enforced against or bind a
university in the matter of any necessity to
seek prior approval to commence a new
department or course and programme in
technical education in any university or any of
its departments and constituent institutions."
29. It would be seen that Shri Aggarwal is on firm
ground because this Court has specifically stated
that rules or regulations which are in the nature of
subordinate legislation which are ultra vires are
bound to be ignored by the courts when the question
of their enforcement arises and the mere fact that
there is no specific relief sought for to strike down
or declare them ultra vires would not stand in the
court's way of not enforcing them. We also feel that
since this is a question of the very jurisdiction to
levy interest and is otherwise covered by a
Constitution Bench decision of this Court, it would
11 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -12-
be a travesty of justice if we would not allow Shri
Aggarwal to make this submission."
13. A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in State of
Haryana Vs. Shamsher Jang Bahadur, 1972(2) SCC 188,
while relying upon Constitution Bench judgment in Sant
Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, AIR
1967 Supreme Court 1910 has held that Government is
not Competent to alter the Rules framed under Article 309
by means of administrative instructions. The relevant
extracts of the judgment reads as:
"7. It may be noted that herein we are dealing only
with those who were promoted from the cadre of
clerks in the Secretariat. The first question arising
for decision is whether the Government was
competent to add by means of administrative
instructions to the qualifications prescribed under
the Rules framed under Article 309. The High Court
and the courts below have come to the conclusion
that the Government was incompetent to do so. This
Court has ruled in Sant Ram Shama v. State of
Rajasthan [(1968) 1 SCR 111] that while the
Government cannot amend or supersede the
statutory rules by administrative instructions, if the
rules are silent on any particular point, the
Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the
rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the
rules already framed. Hence we have to see whether
the instructions with which we are concerned, so far
as relate to the clerks in the Secretariat amend or
they alter the conditions of service prescribed by the
rules framed under Article 309. Undoubtedly the
instructions issued by the Government add to those
qualifications. By adding to the qualifications
already prescribed by the rules, the Government has
really altered the existing conditions of service. The
instructions issued by the Government undoubtedly
affects the promotion of concerned officials and
therefore they relate to their conditions of service.
The Government is not competent to alter the rules
framed under Article 309 by means of administrative
instructions. We are unable to agree with the
contention of the State that by issuing the
instructions in question, the Government had merely
filled up a gap in the rules. The rules can be
implemented without any difficulty. We see no gap in
the rules."
14. A rule cannot operate contrary to a statutory
provision whereunder said rule has been made. Rules
cannot be contrary to statutory provisions. Similarly,
neither instructions can be contrary to statutory provisions
nor rules. The instructions cannot override or flow beyond
12 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -13-
the banks of river of rules. The instructions, which are
contrary to Rules, need to be ignored.
15. In the case in hand, the case of petitioner is squarely
covered by afore-stated Rules, however, his claim has been
rejected on account of instructions which are contrary to
Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution. In view of afore-stated legal position, the
instructions need to be ignored. It is apt to notice here that
respondent has granted similar benefit to identically
placed other employees.
16. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the
present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly
allowed. The impugned order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure
P-17) is hereby quashed."
The said judgment has become final as the same has not
been challenged by the respondents and has been implemented after
filing of COCP-3243 of 2024 (Jasdeep Singh Aulakh v. Anurag
Verma, IAS and others).
14. To the same effect is the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench
in Yash Pal Singh Rana (supra). In the said case, the petitioner had
joined the Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation
Limited as Clerk on 01.11.1975 and thereafter he was promoted as
Senior Assistant. While he was working in the said Corporation, due to
weak financial status of the said Corporation, the same was wound up
and during the said period, the posts of Superintendent in the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum were advertised by the
respondents therein and petitioner therein applied through proper
channel and was selected vide appointment order dated 20.12.2000 and
he joined on 05.01.2001 after he was relieved from the services of the
said Corporation. He joined the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission on 05.01.2001 and superannuated on 30.11.2011,
however, his earlier service rendered from 01.11.1975 till 04.01.2001
13 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -14-
was not counted as qualifying service for computing the pensionary
benefits. The said claim was accepted by this Court vide judgment
dated 05.02.2019 while relying upon various earlier orders passed by
this Court in various other writ petitions. The said judgment has been
followed in Sham Lal (supra) and the same reads as under: -
"1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the orders
dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure P-5) and 03.02.2020
(Annexure P-7) respectively by which the respondents
have declined to grant the benefit of service rendered by
the petitioner with the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land
Development and Finance Corporation, after the
petitioner retired from service working on a pensionable
post with the Government of Punjab.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
relief which is being claimed by the petitioner has already
been granted by this Court to another similarly situated
employee, who had filed CWP No. 2722 of 2013 titled as
Yash Pal Singh Rana Vs. The State of Punjab and others,
decided on 05.02.2019, which judgment has already
attained finality and relief has already been given to Yash
Pal Singh Rana.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been
able to dispute the fact that in Yash Pal Singh Rana's case
(supra) also, the service rendered in the Corporation
wherein the petitioner of that case was working, was
directed to be taken into account for computing the
pensionary benefits. No differentiating factor in the case of
the petitioner and that of Yash Pal Singh Rana's case
(supra) has been proved and so as not to appeal the said
decision in the case of petitioner herein. Hence, the
present petition is also allowed in the same terms as Yash
Pal Singh Rana's case (supra) except that the rate of
interest will be 6% per annum and not 9% as claimed."
x x x x
15. The judgment dated 28.08.2024 in Sham Lal's case
(supra) has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-
3328 of 2024 - State of Punjab and another v. Sham Lal and another
decided on 20.12.2024. The relevant portion from the said judgment
reads as under: -
"4. Learned Single Bench noted that relief claimed by
14 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -15-
respondent/writ-petitioner had been granted to another
similarly situated employee i.e., the petitioner in CWP No.
2722 of 2013, titled 'Yashpal Singh Rana Vs. State of
Punjab and others', decided on 05.02.2019'. It was
concluded that respondents were not able to distinguish
the cause of writ petitioner from that of Yash Pal Singh
Rana. Writ petition was accordingly allowed in the same
terms with the difference that interest at the rate of 6% per
annum instead of 9% was ordered.
5. Aggrieved therefrom, present appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for appellants submits that
Instructions dated 25.04.2017 are categoric, therefore
directions by learned Single Bench are unjustified.
Appointment of writ-petitioner on the post of Section
Officer had to be treated as fresh appointment and he was
not entitled to counting of his service for the purpose of
pension with the respondent-Corporation as qualifying
service for the purpose of pension. It is thus prayed that
present appeal be allowed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for appellants and
have perused the file carefully with his able assistance,
however, we do not find any ground to cause interference
in this matter.
8. It is to be noted that the import and effect of
Instructions dated 25.04.2017 have already been
considered by this Court in LPA No. 2445 of 2024, titled
State of Punjab and others Vs. Om Parkash and others
with the appeal filed by State of Punjab being dismissed.
In the present case also, writ-petitioner had been
appointed through proper channel while in service. His
representation for counting his service with the
respondent-Corporation as qualifying service for the
purpose of pension was duly submitted.
9. It is to be noted, at this stage that in a number of
writ petitions involving similar controversy, respondent
has already granted relief to the employees therein and
counted the service rendered by them with the
Corporations which had not been wound up, for the
purpose of pension. This fact is not denied by learned
counsel for appellants.
10. Learned counsel for appellants is unable to
point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the
impugned order dated 28.08.2024, passed by learned
Single Bench, which calls for interference by this Court."
x x x x
16. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2246
of 2008--Rai Singh and another Vs. Kurukshetra University,
15 of 16
CWP-8718-2023 (O&M) -16-
Kurukshetra, decided on 18.08.2008, has held that once the employees
have been regularised and are held entitled to pension by counting
adhoc service, exclusion of service on contract basis will be
discriminatory as the appointment on contract basis is a type of adhoc
service. Relevant portion from the said judgment reads as under:-
"7. Once the employees have been regularised and are
held entitled to pension by counting adhoc service,
exclusion of service "on contract basis" will be
discriminatory. Appointment on contract basis is a type of
adhoc service. Mere fact that nominal breaks are given or
lesser pay is given or increments are not given, is no
ground to treat the said service differently. Beneficial
provision for pension having been extended to adhoc
employees, denial of the said benefit to employees working
on contract basis, who also stand on same footing as
employees appointed on adhoc basis cannot be held to be
having any rational basis. Judgment of this Court in Kesar
Chand (supra) is fully applicable."
17. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to take into account the service rendered
by the petitioner in ESPL and Department of Information Technology,
Punjab, for the purpose of computing pension and other pensionary
benefits such as leave encashment, gratuity and commutation of
pension, etc. and release the necessary benefits to the petitioner within
a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
08.12.2025 (NAMIT KUMAR)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
16 of 16
