JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to count the entire daily wage services of the petitioners rendered before regularisation as qualifying service for the purposes of pensionary/retiral benefits and furthermore they be held entitled to receive pensionary benefits as per the old GPF scheme which was applicable to employees recruited in Punjab Government Service prior to 01.01.2004. Further, the petitioners be considered in accordance with the Instructions dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure P-12) as clarified vide Notification dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-13) issued by the Government of Punjab. Further, for issuance of directions to the respondents to correct/rectify the stipulation/condition No.4 in the appointment letter dated 04.04.2012 (Annexure P-2) imposing applicability of contributory pension scheme and to rectify the same in accordance with settled position of law and further to quash the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that once the petitioners have been regularized, they cannot be denied the benefit of the service rendered by them as part-time employees as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. He relies upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Haryana and others, 1988 (2) PLR 223 as well as the Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal vs. The State of Punjab and others, 2012 (3) SCT 362 and submits that the past daily wage service rendered by the petitioners is required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The petitioners were regularized prior to contributory pension scheme, as such, they are entitled to the Old Pension Scheme as per the settled law. He further relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Jeewan Lata vs State of Punjab and others, 2019(4) SCT 271, and submits that continuous part-time service followed by regularization shall be counted as qualifying service for pension and therefore, the action of the respondents in denying pensionary benefits to the petitioners is contrary to the settled law.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Jai Bhagwan, 2024 NCPHHC 095763, wherein the part-time employees subsequent to their regularization were granted the benefit of counting of past service as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. In support of claim of the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon another judgment of this Court passed in CWP-12826-2017 titled as Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 22.12.2025 along with a bunch of petitions.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 are not in a position to controvert the fact that the daily wage service rendered by the petitioners is liable to be taken into consideration in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harbans Lal’s case (supra) which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand’s case (supra), wherein while interpreting Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, it was held that the benefit of counting past service rendered by an employee prior to regularization is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for the purposes of pension.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

5. The controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in CWP-10238-2017 titled as Jeewan Lata vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 10.05.2019, CWP-12826-2017 titled as Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 22.12.2025 along with bunch of petitions and C