Contractual service paid from municipal funds, when counted for regularization, must also be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits; employees appointed before the new pension scheme's cut-off date are governed by the old scheme regardless of the date of regularization.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the impugned reply (Annexure P-5) whereby the claim of the petitioners is rejected, directing the respondent authorities to count the service on contractual basis from 01.02.1994 to 20.12.2011 towards qualifying service and release arrears of pension and pensionary benefits due at an interest of 12% p.a. to the petitioners.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners were appointed as Safai Sewaks on contract basis from 01.02.1994. However, their services were terminated on 01.07.1997, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners challenged their termination before the Labour Court, Jalandhar and their claim was partly allowed vide award dated 01.02.2012. Aggrieved by the same, they challenged the award before this Court by filing CWP-8187-2012 and CWP-8388-2012. Consequently, the award was set aside vide order dated 18.02.2015. However, the respondent No.3-Municipal Committee moved LPA-1409-2015 and LPA-1410-2015 against this decision. The Division Bench affirmed the impugned order but modified it to the extent that respondent-Committee was directed to reinstate the petitioners within 15 days and also pay them 50% back wages. Consequently, the petitioners joined service on 27.09.2016 with continuity of service on contract basis.

3. The petitioners also moved CWP-19779-2017 seeking regularisation from the date of regularisation of their juniors i.e. 20.12.2011. The same was allowed vide order dated 24.02.2021 resulting in regularisation of their service by the respondent-Committee vide letter dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) w.e.f. 20.12.2011. Thereafter, the petitioners served a legal notice dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) on the respondents requesting them to accept their claim and grant pension and pensionary benefits by counting previous service, rendered on contract basis, towards qualifying service. The petitioners approached this Court for grant of said relief under the old GPF pension scheme by means of CWP-21618-2025 which was disposed of with a direction to decide the legal notice served by the petitioners. However, vide impugned reply (Annexure P-5), the claim of the petitioners was rejected. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the claim of the petitioners was rejected without affording them a due opportunity to be heard. The main objection raised by the respondents is that the petitioners are only being entitled to New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme as they have been freshly regularised. The case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab 2012(3) SCT 362, which was also followed in Punjab Warehousing Corporation vs. Darshan Kumar Singla LPA-1628-2024. In Harbans Lal(supra), the petitioner therein was initially appointed on 01.08.1988 and regularised on 28.03.2005 while the cut off date for old GPF Pension Scheme was 01.01.2004. However, he was deemed to be in government service prior to 01.01.2004 and not the new scheme introduced subsequently. He further submits that the decision in Harbans Lal(supra) has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP-1790-2011 as well as in review (Review Petition No.2038-2013). Further, the service of the petitioners is governed by the Punjab Municipa