Arjun Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.05.2026 Arjun Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count daily wages/work charge services for the purpose of old pension scheme benefit to the petitioner which rendered prior to regularization and grant the benefits as per old pension scheme after computing his service benefits.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner joined as a Gardener, a Class IV post on 01.10.1993 as a part time employee. Keeping in view his past service, he was regularized on 28.08.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Driver. The petitioner is still in service and going to retire in the year 2027. As such, the petitioner served a legal notice on 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-11) for granting benefit of past service rendered from the date of his initial appointment as qualifying service for calculating pensionary benefits.

-23.

He further relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.1048 of 2016 titled as Jai Bhagwan Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 01.03.2019 (Annexure P-9) which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and co-employees filed CWP No.7367 of 2026 titled as Rajender Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others which was allowed vide order dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-12) in which this Court has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal Vs. The State of Punjab and others 2012 (3) SCT 362 and LPA No.1892 of 2019 titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. Jai Bhagwan decided on 26.07.2024 (Annexure P-10). As such, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision and petitioner is ready for the adjustment of any amount payable under the provident fund at the time of retiral dues.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice (Annexure P-11) of the petitioner is decided by respondent No.3 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 5.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5 submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.3 for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice of the petitioner by passing a speaking order.

6.

Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the legal notice (Annexure P-11) of the petitioner in light of the judgments (Annexures P-9, P10 & P-12) and pass a speaking order, after affording him an opportunity to be

-3heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.3. 7.

Disposed of, accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 26.05.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No