118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.01.2026 Sunita Devi alias Sunita Rani ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Kunwar, Advocate for respondent No.4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The 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 certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure P-13) vide which the entitlement of the petitioner for counting of service rendered by her before 01.01.2004 for counting the same towards retiral benefits has been rejected without any sufficient reason by taking the ground that the petitioner was a part time employee. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to grant pension under the Old Pension Scheme as per law laid down by this Court in CWP No.2371 of 2010 titled as ‘Harbans Lal Vs. State of Punjab and others’ decided on 31.08.2010 and to allot the GPF account number and to make the payment of admissible retiral benefits after counting her service as qualifying service towards retiral benefits i.e. from the year 1994 and to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pension, retiral benefits and the benefits of ACP along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as a part time Sweeper before 2004 with respondent No.4. The services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 2011 vide order dated 08.11.2011 as discernible from Annexure P-4. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2021 (Annexure P-9) and the respondent-authorities refused to count her pre 2004 service for pension citing her initial part time status and Rule 3.17A. He relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab, 2010 SCC Online P&H 8181, affirmed by the Supreme Court, wherein, it was held that daily wage service rendered before regularization must be counted towards qualifying service for pension, and such employees are deemed to be in service prior to 01.01.2004. He also places reliance on State of Haryana vs. Jai Bhagwan, 2024 NCPHHC 95763 where part-time service followed by regularization was directed to be counted for pension.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as cousnel for respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner was regularized after 01.01.2004 and is governed by the new pension scheme. Further, she was part-time employee and cannot be equated with full-time daily wagers.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner was initially appointed as a part time sweeper before the year 2004 and her services were subsequently regularized w.e.f. 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner admittedly entered into service much prior to 01.01.2004 and continued in service till her retirement on 30.06.2021. Further, this issue involved is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the judgment in CWP No.12826 of 2017 titled as ‘Rajesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others’ decided on 22.12.2025, wherein it has been categorically held that part-time/daily wage service followed by regular service is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Consequently, the action of the respondents in denying pensionary benefits to the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme is unsustainable in the eyes law.

5. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana in CWP-626-2015 decided on 17.03.2015 wherein duration of services rendered by a sweeper on part time, before regularisation, was ordered to be counted towards pensionary benefits. The same was als