with respondent No.4. On the basis of Govt. Policy, the services of the petitioner were regularized against the regular post of sweeper, vide office order dated 24.05.2013 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner retired on 31.05.2014, however, the service benefits have not been released to him. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the services of the petitioner were regularized on 24.05.2013 and he remained on regular post for 01 years and 07 days, therefore, he does not fulfill the condition and guidelines to get the retiral benefits as per Pension Rules.In Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1988, P &H, 265, it has been held as under:“19. In the light of the above, let us examine the validity of rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. This rule says that the period of service in a workcharged establishment shall not be taken into account in calculating the qualifying service. After the services of a work-charged employee have been regularised he becomes a public servant. The service is under the Government and is paid by it. This is what was precisely stated in the Industrial Award dated June 1, 1972, between the workmen and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (B. & R), Establishment Branch, Punjab, Patiala, which was published in the Government Gazette dated July 14, 1972. Even otherwise. The matter was settled by the Punjab Government Memo No. 14095-BRI (3)-72/5383 dated 6th February, 1973(Annexure P7) where it was stated that all those work charged employees who had put in ten years of service or more as on 15th August, 1972, their services would be deemed to have been regularised. Once the services of a work charged employee have been regularised, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under Rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the protection of equal laws for all persons similarly situated. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the State Government has. to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work-charged establishment before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who eligible for pension and those who started
