IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-30986-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 17.10.2025 Sankta Prasad ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. 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 seeking quashing of the order dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure P-2), vide which claim of the petitioner has been declined and also to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count his daily wage service from 04.01.1986 to 28.04.2002 followed by regular service towards pensionary benefits i.e. pension, commuted pension, gratuity, leave encashment and GP Fund etc. and to release the arrears thereof along with interest @12% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as Safaisewak (Sweeper) on daily wage basis on 04.01.1986 in respondent No.3-Market Committee, Moga and vide resolution dated 18.12.2001, his services were regularized. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 28.02.2025. Upon retirement, the respondents computed the pensionary benefits of the petitioner only from the date of his regularization i.e. 18.12.2001 by excluding the daily wage service rendered by him. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents to count his past (daily wage) service by submitting a representation. When the claim of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e. CWP-14516-2025 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.05.2025 with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide his representation. In compliance of the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP-14516-2025, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) declining the claim of the petitioner, primarily on the ground that only ad hoc and work charge service is to be counted, whereas the petitioner has served on daily wage basis. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sadhu Singh and others Vs.

State of Punjab and others, CWP-18841-2007, decided on 25.07.2008 (Annexure P-3) and contends that daily wage service rendered by the petitioners therein was ordered to be counted towards qualifying service as per Rule 3.17-A of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II and directed the respondents to pay the consequential benefits along with interest @12% per annum.

3. Learned State counsel is not in a position to controvert the fact that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Sadhu Singh’s case (supra).

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, present petition is decided in limine without issuing notice to respondents No.2 & 3 in order to save their litigation cost and judicial time of the Court.

5. The issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra. The petitioners in Sadhu Singh’s case (supra) worked on daily wage from 1986 to 2004 and the Division Bench, after discussing the ratio of law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) PLR 223, directed the respondents to count past (daily wage) service rendered by the petitioners therein as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. In Sadhu Singh’s case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice M.M. Kumar, observed as under: -

“6. We have heard learned counsel at some length and have perused the paper book with their table assistance. The question regarding grant of pension to the work charged, daily wage and adhoc empl