Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the Order G.O.Ms.No.60 Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH7) Department dated 24.4.2007, vide which the request of the petitioner for counting the temporary service for the purpose of pension has been rejected. 2. The petitioner was appointed as casual labour in the respondent Department in the year 1981, and served the Department for more than 17 years. The service of the petitioner was regularised in the year 1997 and he attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.1988. 3. The petitioner therefore worked as permanent Animal Husbandry Assistant for one year three months and fourteen days. 4. The petitioner, made a request to the respondent to grant pension by counting his temporary service rendered by him prior to his regularisation. 5. The request of the petitioner stands rejected on the ground, that as per G.O.Ms.No.60 Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH7) Department dated 24.4.2007, only 50% of the service rendered as casual/temporary worker could be counted for the purpose of pension. The petitioner therefore was not entitled to pension as he did not complet ten years of service, after availing 50% benefit of temporary/casual service. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as G.O.Ms.No.60 Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH7) Department dated 24.4.2007 is arbitrary and thus hit by Article 14 of Constitution of India. 7. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in 1988AIR (P&H)-0-265 (Kesar Chand vs State of Punjab), wherein, Rule 3.17(ii) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol.2 was held to be ultra-virus. The Hon'ble Full Bench 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 work-charged 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 rule says that the period of service in a work-charged 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 Eingineer; P.W.D (B. and 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 on 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 are eligible for pension and those who started as work-charged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligble criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work-charged employee have been regularised, he is a public servant like by other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for case reasons the provisions of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 8. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for case reasons the provisions of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 8. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 24.4.2007 can also be said to be ultra-virus the Constitution being hit by Article 14 of Constitution of India, and cannot come in the way of the petitioner, to claim the benefit of the temporary service rendered prior to his regularisation. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that only 50% of the service rendered as temporary/adhoc service could be taken into consideration in view of G.O.Ms.No.437 dated 23.6.88, also cannot be accepted as the G.O.Ms.No.437 dated 23.6.88 cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in 1988-AIR (P&H)-0-265 (Kesar Chand vs State of Punjab). 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed, and a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued directing the respondents to count the entire service of the petitioner for the purpose of pension. The needful be done within three months of the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.