IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.09.2011 1) CWP No. 2059 of 2011 Jaspal Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 2) CWP No. 9812 of 2010 Kehar Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 3) CWP No. 5619 of 2011 Dilbag Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. P.K.Dwivedi, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 2059 of 2011. Mr. H.K.Brinda, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 9812 of 2010 Mr. Jagdeep Bains, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 5619 of 2011. Mr. N.S.Bawa, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP No. 2059 of 2011. Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5 in CWP No. 5619 of 2011. Mr. B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State of Punjab. **** CWP No. 2059 of 2011 [2] SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) These writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, hence are being disposed of by a common order. For brevity, the facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 2059 of 2011. The petitioners are working as Pump Operators/Beldars etc. in the Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab. They seek a direction for regularization of their work charge services retrospectively prior to 01.01.2004 and to hold them entitled to get the benefit of old pension scheme as applicable in the State of Punjab as and when they retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners also seek for the consequential allotment of G.P.F. Account Numbers instead of P.P.A.N. Account Numbers. The respondents have filed their reply affidavit and contested the petitioners claim. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners have cited a decision dated 31.08.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2371 of 2010 (Harbans Lal Versus State of Punjab and others) wherein also some what similar issues were raised. After referring to the case law as well as the Rules/Instructions, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition holding as follows:- “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- CWP No. 2059 of 2011 [3] structured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (Annexure P-1) has been introduced for the new entrants in the Punjab Government Service w.e.f. 01.01.2004, will not be applicable to the petitioner. The amendment made vide Annexure P-2 amending the Punjab Civil Services Rules, cannot be further amended by issuing clarification/instructions dated 30.5.2008 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner will continue to be governed by the GPF Scheme and is held entitled to receive pensionary benefits as applicable to the employees recruited in the Punjab Govt. Services prior to 1.1.2004. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly respondents are directed to treat the whole period of work charge service as qualified service for pension because accordingly to clarification issued on 30.5.2008 (Annexure P-3), the new defined Contributory Pension Scheme would be applicable to all those employees who have been working prior to 1.1.2004 but have been regularized thereafter. Let his pension and arrears be calculated and paid to him expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” The present writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claims made by the petitioners in their respective writ petitions in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in Harbans Lal's case (supra) and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Dasti. 20.09.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE