IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.2246 of 2008 Date of decision: August 18 , 2008 Rai Singh and another -----Petitioners Vs. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Akshay Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. SC Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate for the respondent. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This writ petition seeks quashing of Clause 4 (vi) of Kurukshetra University Employees’ pension Scheme/Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), providing that the period spent on contract basis is not to be counted as qualifying service for pension, which is as under:- “(vi) (a) The period spent on contract basis and also service paid from contingency or CWP No.2246 of 2008 apprenticeship shall not count as qualifying service for pension. b) The period spent on adhoc basis in this University shall be counted as qualifying service for pension provided such services count for increment as per instructions given in the letter No.F.D.Hr.No.1/2 (1) -80-2 FRII dated 31.1.1984 (Annexure C).” 2. Case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as daily wagers between 22.1.1994 to 16.12.1996. Nomenclature of their appointment was changed to Securitymen on ‘contract basis’. They continued to work in that capacity till their services were regularized as per policy of the Haryana Government dated 1.10.2003, Annexure P.1. Under the impugned provision, an employee who completes 10 years of qualifying service, is entitled to pension. The period spent on contract basis is not counted as qualifying service, though period spent on ad hoc or work charge basis is counted for pension. 3. Stand of the respondent-University is that vide order dated 13.9.2007, Annexure P.7, claim for the petitioners was considered and rejected under the rules. It has been further submitted that adhoc employees were entitled to count their service as they are paid regular pay but contractual or daily wagers are not paid regular pay and therefore, their services could not be counted for the purpose of pension. 2 CWP No.2246 of 2008 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and others, 1988(2) PLR 223, wherein validity of Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II was considered, which provided for temporary or officiating service followed by regularization to be counted as qualifying service but excluded period of service in work charge establishment. It was held that if temporary or officiating service was to be counted towards qualifying service, it was illogical that period of service in a work charge establishment was not counted. 6. As held in Kesar Chand (supra), pension is not a bounty and is for the service rendered. It is a social welfare measure to meet hardship in the old age. The employees can certainly be classified on rational basis for the purpose of grant or denial of pension. A cut off date can also be fixed unless the same is arbitrary or discriminatory. In absence of valid classification, discriminatory treatment is not permissible. 7. Once the employees have been regularised and are held entitled to pension by counting adhoc service, exclusion of service “on contract basis” will be discriminatory. Appointment on contract basis is a type of adhoc service. Mere fact that nominal breaks are given or lesser pay is given or increments are not given, is no ground to treat the said service differently. Beneficial provision for pension having been extended to adhoc employees, 3 CWP No.2246 of 2008 denial of the said benefit to employees working on contract basis, who also stand on same footing as employees appointed on adhoc basis cannot be held to be having any rational basis. Judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand (supra) is fully applicable. 8. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and declare that the contractual employees who have rendered continuous service (ignoring nominal breaks) followed by regularization in a pensionable establishment, will be entitled to be treated at par with adhoc employees in such establishments, for counting their qualifying service for pension. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 18 , 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 4