109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.02.2026 Jagdish ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Virinder K. Shukla, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ankit Gaur, Advocate for the respondent-PSPCL (through V.C.). HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2 and memo dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P-8). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count the entire part time service of the petitioner from 01.10.1989 to 09.04.2006 followed by regular service towards pensionary benefits and accordingly to release his pension under the Old Pension Scheme along with consequential arrears with an interest @ 12% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as a part time Sweeper on 01.10.1989 in the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. His services were regularized as a Peon vide order dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-4) read with order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner retired from his service on 30.06.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, his pensionary benefits were not released. He filed CWP No.10440 of 2025 which was disposed of on 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) with a direction to decide the legal notice served by the petitioner within a period of three months by passing a speaking order.

3. In purported compliance, respondent No.2 passed the impugned speaking order on 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-7) denying pension under the Old Pension Scheme and by holding that the case is covered under the New Pension Scheme on the basis of memo dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P-8). The rejection was based solely on the ground that the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 10.04.2006 i.e. after the cut off date of 01.01.2004. The petitioner has rendered 33 years of service which includes 17 years prior to his regularization. The petitioner on the basis of policy dated 04.06.1999 (Annexure P-1) filed CWP No.4917 of 2008 much prior to his date of retirement seeking regularization of service. Ultimately, service of the petitioner was regularized by the respondent- Corporation vide order dated 28.06.2024 and 24.12.2024 w.e.f. 10.04.2006 in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.95 of 2019 decided on 12.12.2022 which is prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner on 30.06.2023.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents reiterates the impugned speaking order dated 01.08.2025 and submits that prior to regularization, the petitioner was working as a part-time Sweeper and was regularized only w.e.f. 10.04.2006 i.e. after the cut-off date of 01.01.2004;

therefore, he is governed by the New Pension Scheme.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was initially appointed as a part time Sweeper on 01.10.1989 and his services were subsequently regularized w.e.f. 10.04.2006. The petitioner admittedly entered into service much prior to 01.01.2004 and continued in service till her retirement on 30.06.2023. Further, the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in CWP No.10238 of 2017 titled as ‘Jeewan Lata Vs. State of Punjab and others’ decided on 10.05.2019 (Annexure P-9), CWP No.12826 of 2017 titled as ‘Rajesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 22.12.2025 along with bunch of petitions (Annexure P-10) and CWP No.1672 of 2026 titled as ‘Bimla Devi Vs. Punjab State Power Cor