JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue with General Provident Fund Scheme and to grant him pensionary benefits as applicable to the employees recruited prior to 01.01.2004 along with all the consequential benefits. It is further prayed to direct the respondents to count the entire service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis before regularization for the purpose of qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits in view of Rule 2(J) of Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 (for short ‘1994 Rules’).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on contract basis in Municipal Council, Dera Bassi vide appointment letter dated 22.04.1999 and she joined on 27.04.1999. In the year 2011, services of the petitioner were regularized and her initial appointment in the year 1999 does not make her a new entrant after cut off date. He relies upon a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal Vs. The State of Punjab and others, 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 8181, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it has been authoritatively held that daily wage or service rendered by an employee on contract basis must be counted towards qualifying service for calculating the pension and pensionary benefits and the employee was deemed to be in service prior to 01.01.2004.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on a 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 petitioner, learned counsel also relies upon another judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 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.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.4 & 5 has produced copy of an interim order dated 07.09.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 9472 of 2020 titled as Punjab School Education Board and another Vs. Satnam Singh and others, in which operation of the judgment dated 14.01.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1902-2017 was stayed. However, he could not controvert the fact that judgment in Harbans Lal’s case (supra) was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) PLR 223, wherein while interpreting Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, benefit of counting of past service preceding regularization towards qualifying service for pension was granted.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was serving the respondent-Council since the year 1999 prior to cut off date i.e. 01.01.2004, when the New Pension Scheme was came into effect. There is no denial to the fact that services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 2011 on the basis of her satisfactory and continuous service.

6. Further, services of the petitioner are being governed by 1994 Rules and Rule 2(J) thereof, which defines ‘qualifying service’, reads as under: -

“2(j) ‘Qualifying service’ means the service rendered under a committee for which an employee is paid from the municipal fund and shall include any service rendered under the Government of Punjab, an Improvement Trust, a Corporation or any other Public Sector Undertaking immediately before joining the service.”

7. Rules 8 & 13 of 1994 Rules deal with the general provision regarding pension and applicabil