Court rules that employee regularised from 01.04.2011 deemed to have completed five years of regular service; directs counting of part-time service for pension benefits
Chandigarh: In an important judgment concerning compassionate appointment and pensionary benefits of government employees, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the benefit of retrospective regularisation cannot be ignored while deciding the eligibility of dependents of a deceased employee.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while allowing a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of a deceased government employee, held that once the State itself had regularised the services of the employee with retrospective effect from 01.04.2011, the authorities could not subsequently deny benefits by treating the employee as having completed only a few months of regular service.
The Court further directed the authorities to reconsider the claim of the deceased employee’s son for appointment on compassionate grounds and also ruled that the long period of part-time service rendered before regularisation would be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
The judgment was delivered in CWP-5753-2022 titled Krishna Devi (Legal Heir) and Another versus State of Haryana and Others, decided on 12.08.2026.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the death of Maan Singh, who was working as a Class-IV employee in the Education Department, Haryana.
As per the facts placed before the Court, Maan Singh was initially appointed as a Part-Time Sweeper in the year 1994 through the Employment Exchange, Ladwa. His formal appointment order was issued by the Block Education Officer, Ladwa, on 12.08.1994, and he joined duties on 13.08.1994 at Government Primary School, Sultanpur, District Kurukshetra.
For several years, he continued working on part-time basis. Subsequently, the services of part-time Class-IV employees were regularised by the department.
The department issued an order dated 09.07.2019 regularising the services of Maan Singh with effect from 01.04.2011. In pursuance of the regularisation order, an appointment letter was issued on 10.07.2019 and he joined the regular post on 12.07.2019.
However, unfortunately, Maan Singh met with a fatal accident on 05.01.2020 and passed away on 10.01.2020.
Following his death, his family sought benefits under the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019.
Family Sought Compassionate Appointment for Son
After the death of Maan Singh, his widow Krishna Devi requested that instead of monthly financial assistance, her son should be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.
The family contended that since the employee’s services had already been regularised retrospectively from 01.04.2011, he had completed more than eight years of regular service before his death.
According to the petitioners, the requirement under the 2019 Rules of completion of five years of regular service stood fulfilled.
However, the department rejected the claim stating that Maan Singh had joined regular service only on 12.07.2019 and had completed less than one year of regular service before his death.
The authorities also relied upon the fact that the family had received monthly financial assistance and argued that the family could not claim both benefits.
Petitioners Challenge Rejection Before High Court
The petitioners approached the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution challenging:
- The regularisation order only to the extent that benefits were not granted from the earlier claimed date;
- The order granting monthly financial assistance but rejecting compassionate appointment;
- The speaking order rejecting their claim.
The petitioners sought directions for:
- Appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds;
- Counting past part-time service for pensionary benefits;
- Grant of Old Pension Scheme benefits and other consequential benefits.
The petitioners were represented by Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Advocate along with Mr. Parth Goyal and Ms. Shallu Aggarwal, Advocates. The State was represented by Mr. Akshit Pathania, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
State’s Stand Before Court
Opposing the petition, the State argued that the rejection was justified.
The State submitted that under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, a deceased government employee must have completed five years of regular service for his family member to be considered for compassionate appointment.
Since Maan Singh joined regular service only on 12.07.2019 and died on 10.01.2020, he had completed less than one year of regular service.
Therefore, according to the State, his son was not eligible for compassionate appointment.
The State further argued that the family had already accepted monthly financial assistance and therefore could not subsequently claim compassionate appointment.
High Court Examines Issue of Retrospective Regularisation
The main issue before the Court was whether the employee’s regular service should be counted from the actual date of joining the regular post or from the date mentioned in the regularisation order.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar examined the regularisation order issued by the department.
The Court noted that the department itself had regularised Maan Singh’s services with retrospective effect from 01.04.2011. The appointment letter issued thereafter also specifically mentioned that regularisation would operate from that date.
The Court observed that the respondents could not adopt contradictory positions.
On one hand, the department treated the employee as regular from 01.04.2011, while on the other hand, it denied the family benefits by counting service only from July 2019.
The Court held that such an approach was legally unsustainable.
Court Holds Five-Year Requirement Satisfied
The Court held that since the employee’s services were regularised retrospectively from 01.04.2011, he would be deemed to have completed more than five years of regular service on the date of his death.
The Court observed that the respondents had wrongly interpreted the Rules of 2019 by ignoring the retrospective effect granted by their own order.
The Court also noted that the claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered according to the policy applicable on the date of death of the employee.
Relying upon Supreme Court judgments, the Court reiterated that the scheme applicable at the time of death governs the rights of the dependents.
Financial Assistance and Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Decided Mechanically
The Court also examined the argument that since the family had received financial assistance, compassionate appointment could not be claimed.
Rejecting the mechanical approach adopted by the authorities, the Court held that the family had specifically requested that the claim for financial assistance be kept pending until the request for compassionate appointment was considered.
Therefore, the authorities should have considered both options and thereafter allowed the family to exercise its choice.
Important Finding Regarding Part-Time Service and Pension
The second major issue before the Court related to whether the employee’s part-time service from 1994 to 2011 could be counted for pensionary benefits.
The Court referred to earlier judgments and observed that the issue was already settled.
It held that part-time/daily wage service followed by regularisation can be counted as qualifying service for pension purposes.
The Court observed that Maan Singh had continuously served the department for more than 16 years before regularisation and such long service could not be ignored merely because his initial appointment was on part-time basis.
Employee’s Family Held Entitled to Old Pension Consideration
The Court further noted that Maan Singh was working with the department before introduction of the New Pension Scheme in Haryana.
Therefore, subsequent regularisation could not by itself deprive him or his family from consideration under the Old Pension Scheme.
The Court directed the authorities to consider his entitlement accordingly.
Final Directions Issued by High Court
Allowing the petition, the High Court:
- Quashed the speaking order dated 12.07.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioners;
- Directed the authorities to reconsider the claim of the deceased employee’s son for compassionate appointment within six weeks;
- Directed that the claim should not be rejected merely on the ground that five years of regular service were not completed;
- Directed counting of part-time service from 13.08.1994 to 31.03.2011 for pensionary benefits.
The Court further directed the family to return the amount received as monthly financial assistance, which would then be adjusted against pension arrears and other benefits. The authorities were directed to pay arrears along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the petition.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reinforces the principle that government authorities cannot take contradictory positions regarding their own orders.
Once an employee’s services are regularised retrospectively, the benefits flowing from such regularisation cannot be denied to the employee or his legal heirs by artificially restricting the period of service.
The decision provides significant relief to families of government employees whose services were regularised after long periods of temporary or part-time employment and highlights the importance of recognising long years of service rendered before formal regularisation.
The ruling also strengthens the legal position that pensionary benefits must reflect the actual length of service contributed by an employee and cannot be denied merely on technical grounds.