.webp)
The Supreme Court on September 8, 2026, dismissed an appeal filed by the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB) and upheld pensionary benefits for employees who had worked for years on contract, ad hoc, daily-wage or work-charge arrangements before being regularised in 2004.
The Court held that their earlier service had to be counted as qualifying service for pension and that they would be treated as having entered service before January 1, 2004, the cutoff date for the new pension regime.
Background of the Case
The employees were initially engaged by PSEB between 1993 and 1996 as Clerks and Peons on temporary arrangements, including 89-day appointments. Their contractual service continued for several years amid repeated litigation and administrative decisions.
In 2004, following the Board’s decision to adopt the Punjab Government’s regularisation policy as a one-time measure, appointment letters were issued to eligible employees from August 2004.
The employees later sought coverage under the old pension scheme, arguing that their service had actually begun much before January 1, 2004.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court accepted their claim. PSEB then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar found that the employees had, in substance, been regularised rather than freshly appointed in 2004.
The Court noted that the Board’s own records, including its 2011 communication to the State Government, showed that the employees had been working for a long period before their regularisation.
"Once it is established that the services were regularized, it remains to be seen whether the service rendered prior to August 2004 must be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of retiral benefits."
The Court further held that artificial or administrative breaks in service had to be ignored where the employees had otherwise rendered continuous service.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the employees’ pre-regularisation service must be counted as qualifying service for retirement and pension benefits. Since their service began before January 1, 2004, they were to be treated as having entered service before the cutoff date.
The Court also held that the employees were entitled to choose either the old GPF pension scheme or the new scheme, if they opted for it.
The appeal filed by the Punjab School Education Board was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Punjab School Education Board and Another v. Satnam Singh and Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6865 of 2022
Judge: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Decision Date: September 8, 2026
-300x169.webp)
