IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

208 CWP-18116-2018 (O&M)

Date of decision : 08.04.2026 AMAR SINGH ...... Petitioner VERSUS CHANDGHARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR ...... Respondents

208-2 CWP-18535-2018 (O&M)

RAM PAL ...... Petitioner VERSUS CHANDGHARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR ...... Respondents

208-3 CWP-18628-2018 (O&M)

AMIT PATHANIA ...... Petitioner VERSUS CHANDGHARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR ...... Respondents

208-4 CWP-18623-2018 (O&M)

GURSHAN SINGH ...... Petitioner VERSUS CHANDGHARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA ***

Present :- Dr. D. S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Kumar Premi, Advocate for respondent No.1 in all cases.

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pratiksha Sharma and Ms. Vaishnavi Sikka, Advocates for respondent No.2.

***

Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J. (Oral)

1. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, four connected writ petitions shall stand disposed of by this common order and facts are taken from CWP-18116-2018.

2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in considering the case of petitioner for the purpose of pension under the New Contributory Pension Scheme instead of Old Pension Scheme.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Laboratory Attendant on contract basis in respondent No.2-college on 21.03.2003 (Annexure P-1). Various extensions were granted, on the basis of which the petitioner continued in service on contract basis. The Board of Management of respondent No.2, in its 44^th meeting held on 31.07.2014, decided to regularize the services of non- teaching staff who had rendered 10 years of service on contract basis (Annexure P-2). In light of the decision taken by the Board of Management in the meeting held on 31.07.2014, the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure P-3). After regularization of service of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was considered under the New Contributory Pension Scheme, and he was allotted Permanent Retirement Account Number under the said scheme.

4. Aggrieved against the action of respondents in allotting the petitioner Permanent Retirement Account Number under the New Contributory Pension Scheme, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that although, the petitioner services have been regularized vide order dated 16.10.2014 however, as the petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis on 21.03.2003, which is prior to the cut off date on 01.01.2004 when the New Contributory Pension Scheme was introduced. As such, the case of the petitioner was to be considered under the Old Pension Scheme and not under the New Contributory Pension Scheme.

6. Reliance is made to the 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 and LPA-1892 of 2019 titled as 'State of Haryana and others Vs. Jai Bhagwan', decided on 26.07.2024

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered under the Old Pension Scheme for the reason that the petitioner was not entitled for regularization in terms of the regularization policy and the decision taken by respondent No.2 in regard to regularization of policy in the meeting held by the Board of Directors on 31.07.2014 was bad in law. It is also the case of learned counsel that if the basic order of regularization is bad in law, no benefit can be given to the petitioner of regularization.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the services of the petitioner were regularized in terms of the instructions/policy dated 10.02.2014 vide order dated 16.10.2014. He further submits that a perusal of the order of regulariz