Work-Charged Service Must Count Towards Pension; Executive Instructions Cannot Override Rule 3.17-A, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Raghbir Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Others
Date of Judgment: 24 July 2026
Citation: CWP-5305-2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that work-charged and ad hoc service rendered prior to regularisation is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for pension under Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The Court further held that executive instructions or departmental memoranda cannot override statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Once an employee’s services have been regularised, pensionary benefits cannot be denied by relying upon administrative instructions prescribing conditions contrary to the statutory rules. However, where an employee approaches the Court after an inordinate delay, the arrears of pension can be restricted despite granting the substantive relief.
Summary: The petitioner, Raghbir Singh, was initially appointed as a Work-Charge T-Mate with the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 1 February 1975 and subsequently served as an Assistant Lineman on an ad hoc basis before his services were regularised on 10 December 1981. He continued in service, earned promotion as a Lineman, and retired on 31 December 2007. Upon retirement, the respondents computed his pension by considering only his regular service from the date of regularisation while excluding his work-charged and ad hoc service rendered between 1 February 1975 and 9 December 1981. His request for counting the said service was rejected through an order dated 11 February 2022 on the ground that he did not satisfy the conditions contained in Memo dated 23 January 2001, particularly because he was not matriculate at the time of his initial appointment and allegedly lacked the prescribed experience. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking inclusion of his pre-regularisation service for pensionary benefits.
The principal question before the Court was whether statutory pension rules permitting the counting of work-charged and ad hoc service could be curtailed by executive instructions prescribing additional eligibility conditions. While examining the issue, the Court relied extensively upon the Full Bench decision in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, which declared that once a work-charged employee is regularised, denial of pensionary benefits for the earlier period of service is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also relied upon its recent decision in Dharvinder Paul Sehgal v. State of Punjab, reiterating that Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules governs qualifying service and that administrative instructions inconsistent with statutory rules cannot prevail. The Court further referred to decisions explaining that executive instructions may supplement statutory rules where they are silent but cannot amend, override, or dilute rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
Rejecting the respondents’ stand, the High Court observed that once the petitioner had been regularised on the basis of the qualifications accepted by the employer, the respondents could not subsequently deny the benefit of counting his earlier work-charged and ad hoc service by relying upon executive instructions. Rule 3.17-A expressly contemplates counting qualifying service and overrides departmental memoranda inconsistent with its provisions. The Court held that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s claim was arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the statutory rules governing pension. At the same time, the Court recognised that the petitioner had approached the authorities more than thirteen years after his retirement and therefore applied the settled principle governing delayed service claims by restricting the arrears of pension instead of denying the substantive entitlement altogether.
Decision: Allowing the writ petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim and directed the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited to count the petitioner’s work-charged and ad hoc service rendered from 1 February 1975 to 9 December 1981 towards his qualifying service for pension. The respondents were directed to recalculate and release the revised pension within four months. However, considering the petitioner’s delay of more than thirteen years in asserting his claim after retirement, the Court restricted the monetary arrears to a period of thirty-eight months preceding the filing of the writ petition instead of granting full arrears.