Back
PANKAJ JAIN
Harbinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)
By this common order, the bunch of three writ petitions, details of which have been given in the heading, are being disposed off as all the writ petitions having the same question of law and similar facts.
2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the employees who came in employment of different Municipal Committees prior to 01.01.2004. The services, however, have been regularised post 01.01.2004. The question involved in all the writ petitions relate to as to whether the petitioners would be governed by old PENSION RULES which were invoked prior to 01.01.2004 or would be governed by New Contributory Pension Fund Scheme promulgated by State which came into being on 01.01.2004 and was made appealable to the fresh entrants after 01.04.2004.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Division Bench judgment rendered by this Court in ' Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and others , 2012(3) SCT 362 ', and further judmgent passed by Coordinate Bench passed in CWP-9208-2020 titled as 'Jitpal Singh v. State of Punjab and others' decided on 04.07.2022, wherein relying upon the Harbans Lal's case (supra) the employees who were appointed on daily wag
Employees regularized after 01.01.2004 can still count pre-regularization service towards pension eligibility, ensuring equitable treatment under pension rules.
Service rendered as daily wage employees must be counted towards qualifying service for pension, ensuring equal treatment under the law.
Employees regularized from daily wage status are entitled to count prior service for pension eligibility, affirming pension as a right under constitutional law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
