114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.10.2025 Anaib Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

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 16.09.2025 (Annexure P-10), whereby the claim of the petitioner to be governed by the General Provident Fund (GPF) and the Old Pension Scheme, as applicable to employees recruited prior to

01.01.2004, was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was initially appointed on a contractual basis as a Sewadar on 06.03.1997 and his services were regularized much later on 20.12.2011 as such the petitioner cannot be treated as a new entrant appointed after 01.01.2004. He submits that the entire service rendered by an employee, including the period spent on a contractual or daily wage basis, must be counted towards qualifying service for pension. Relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab, CWP No. 2371 of 2010, decided on

31.08.2010 (Annexure P-12), the counsel stated that an employee is deemed to be in government service from the date of initial appointment, and the pension scheme applicable on that date governs his service. It is further submitted that the judgment in Harbans Lal (supra) has attained finality, having been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel also places reliance on the recent Division Bench judgment in Punjab State Warehousing Corporation vs. Darshan Kumar Singla, LPA-1628 of 2024, decided on 13.01.2025, which reaffirms the same principle. The impugned order is patently illegal, arbitrary, and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it incorrectly applies the New Contributory Pension Scheme to the petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis only on 20.12.2011, which is after the cut-off date of 01.01.2004 for the implementation of the New Restructured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme. Further as per the instructions of the Government, particularly the memo dated 25.04.2011 (Annexure P-7), the new scheme is applicable to all employees of local bodies appointed on or after 01.01.2004. Learned Counsel further stated that date of regularization is the relevant date for determining the applicability of the pension scheme, not the date of initial contractual appointment.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal (supra) has conclusively held that the entire daily wage or contractual service of an employee, from the date of initial appointment till the date of regularization, is to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The Court held that such an employee will be deemed to be in government service from the date of initial appointment and, therefore, the new pension scheme introduced for new entrants w.e.f. 01.01.2004 will not be applicable to them. This court in Harbans Lal (supra)

observed that, "From the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the entire daily wage service of the petitioner from 1988 till the date of his regularization is to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. He will be deemed to be in govt. service prior to 1.1.2004. The new Re-structured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme... introduced for the new entrants in the Punjab Government Service w.e.f. 01.01.2004, will not be applicable to the petitioner... The petitioner will continue to be governed by the GPF Scheme and is held entitled to receive pensionary