IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :16.04.2026 KARAM CHAND …..Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR PRESENT: Mr. Sunil K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumeet Jain, Additional Standing Counsel with Ms. Urvashi Singh, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents-U.T., Chandigarh.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 4, i.e., the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner, being OA No. 060/00614/2019, claiming pensionary benefits, has been dismissed.

2. Certain facts needs to be noted for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Cook on a daily wage basis in the Police Department of U.T. Chandigarh on 27.09.1990 for a period of three months, i.e., up to 26.12.1990. However, the petitioner continued to work till 20.06.2002, when his services were terminated vide termination order dated 13.08.2002. The said order of termination was challenged by the petitioner by filing OA No. 675/CH/2002, which was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated n 10.03.2003 (Annexure A-1). Vide said order dated 10.03.2003 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Tribunal, the termination of the petitioner’s services was held to be illegal, and he was directed to be reinstated in service on the same terms and conditions as were applicable at the time of his termination. However, the claim for regularization was declined by the Tribunal.

4. Thereafter, upon attaining the age of 62 years in 2019, the petitioner’s services were again terminated vide order dated 18.04.2019 (Annexure A-3). The said termination was challenged by the petitioner by filing OA No. 060/00614/2019, which was decided on 30.09.2019. In the said original application, the petitioner also prayed for the grant of pensionary benefits, which were denied solely on the ground that though the petitioner had worked from 1990 till 2017, i.e. approximately for a period of 27/28 years, but his services were never regularized, and therefore, he was not held entitled for the grant of pensionary benefits. The said order dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Tribunal is under challenge in the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that since the petitioner has rendered service with respondent-department for a period of more than 27 years, and even during the pendency of the present writ petition an order dated 11.01.2022 was passed by Chandigarh Administration treating the petitioner as a regular employee and even a direction was given to calculate pensionary benefits admissible keeping in view the length of service rendered by him , but no such benefit has yet been granted to him and hence, the respondents are under obligation to grant the benefit of regularization of his service to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits as well.

6. Reply by way of an affidavit of Manjeet Singh, SP, (HQ) Union Territory, Chandigarh ,Sector-9 Chandigarh, filed by the learned counsel for the respondents in the Court, is taken on record.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that, as per order dated 11.01.2022 (Annexure R-1), the services of the petitioner were regularized for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. However, the said order was never implemented by the respondents on the ground that there was no direction by any competent court of law to regularize the petitioner’s services. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that since the petitioner was overage at the time of his initial appointment, he cannot be held entitled for the grant of benefit of regularization.

8. Learn