IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-34660-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.12.2025 Jaswant Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate with Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

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 certiorari, for quashing the impugned speaking order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.2. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to count the services of the petitioner as regular employee from the date of initial appointment i.e. 18.06.1985 with all consequential benefits, by considering the petitioner as regular employee from the date when the employees junior to him have been regularized. Another prayer has been made to consider the case of the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme upto the date of retirement of petitioner i.e. 31.12.2024, which has been denied by the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was initially joined as a Daily Wager on 18.06.1985. Thereafter, he was illegally terminated and the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the learned Labour Court in the year 1992, ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service, however, the petitioner has abandoned his back wages. Despite passing of the award granting him continuity of service as a daily wager, the petitioner was only regularized in the year 2012, after a protected litigation. The qualifying service of the petitioner was counted from 10.03.2010 and the department vide impugned order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-9) has refused to count the past services of the petitioner from the year 1985 for pensionary benefits whereas the identical circumstanced juniors to the petitioner have been regularized. He further submits that denial of counting pre-regularization service of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the award passed by the learned Labour Court. Lastly, he submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1988(5) SLR 25, and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(3) SCT

362

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that since the petitioner has abandoned the back wages and has already taken all the retiral dues under the New Pension Scheme and thus, the petitioner’s claim for counting pre-regularization service is untenable.

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

5. Admittedly, the learned Labour Court has concluded the industrial award with continuity of service. It is a settled law that even if the award is silent, the continuity of service would flow as a matter of right in terms of the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao vs Kosan Industries (P) Limited, 2020(1) SCT 709. Further, it is undisputed that the petitioner, who joined as a daily wager on 18.06.1985, was regularized only in the year 2012 and even then his regularization was fixed as 10.03.2010, ignoring the continuity of service granted under the industrial award.

6. The issue involved in this petition has been authoritatively decided by the Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand’s case (supra) wherein it was held that the work-charge service rendered prior to regularisation is to be counted as qualifying service for pension and other service benefits. The operative part of the said judgment, reads as follows:-

"Once the services of a work-charged employee have been regularized, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the