Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 July, 2026
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -1-
110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) CWP-20263-2024
Date of decision: 09.07.2026
Om Prakash ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
2) CWP-11109-2025
Daya Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
3) CWP-11600-2025
Shimla Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
4) CWP-1279-2025
Subhash Chand and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
5) CWP-12845-2025
Maya ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
6) CWP-13853-2025
Surjeet Kaur ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -2-
7) CWP-13944-2025
Paramjeet Kaur and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
8) CWP-14075-2025
Prem Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
9) CWP-14094-2025
Chaman Lal and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
10) CWP-14112-2025
Madan Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
11) CWP-14145-2025
Ajit Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
12) CWP-15274-2025
Data Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -3-
13) CWP-15311-2025
Gyan Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
14) CWP-15339-2025
Gulab Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
15) CWP-15363-2025
Neelam and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
16) CWP-15425-2025
Deepak Kumar and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
17) CWP-15498-2025
Sushma Rani and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
18) CWP-15508-2025
Tarun Kumar and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -4-
19) CWP-15546-2025
Lokesh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
20) CWP-15616-2025
Bhateri Devi and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
21) CWP-15765-2025
Jai Singh and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
22) CWP-15803-2025
Kailash Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
23) CWP-15812-2025
Billu Ram and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
24) CWP-16525-2025
Suresh Chand and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -5-
25) CWP-17966-2025
Krishna ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
26) CWP-18336-2025
Kunti Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
27) CWP-22530-2025
Jai Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
28) CWP-22655-2024
Gyarsi Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
29) CWP-23016-2024
Maya Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
30) CWP-23034-2024
Balbir Kaur ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -6-
31) CWP-23211-2025
Kapur Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
32) CWP-23320-2025
Jai Bhagwan ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
33) CWP-23439-2025
Savitri ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
34) CWP-2361-2025
Vinod Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
35) CWP-23667-2025
Bijender Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
36) CWP-23678-2025
Devender Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -7-
37) CWP-23730-2025
Rampal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
38) CWP-23739-2025
Chajju Ram and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
39) CWP-23837-2025
Lekhram and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
40) CWP-24474-2025
Pola Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
41) CWP-24477-2025
Dharma and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
42) CWP-25184-2024
Harnek Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
43) CWP-25383-2024
Chhindo ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -8-
44) CWP-25655-2025
Mana Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
45) CWP-25874-2024
Murti Devi and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
46) CWP-25933-2024
Bina Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
47) CWP-26008-2025
Ramlo Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
48) CWP-26442-2025
Savitri Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
49) CWP-27204-2025
Ompati ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
50) CWP-27448-2025
Ram Kanwar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -9-
51) CWP-27855-2024
Krishan Lal and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
52) CWP-27971-2024
Laxman Dass ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
53) CWP-28537-2024
Shri Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
54) CWP-28868-2024
Lakhmi Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
55) CWP-29601-2024
Zile Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
56) CWP-29759-2024
Randhir Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
57) CWP-30819-2024
Giani Ram and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -10-
58) CWP-30823-2024
Bhagi Rath and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
59) CWP-31138-2024
Jai Bhagwan ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
60) CWP-31798-2024
Ram Kali ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
61) CWP-31993-2024
Rajesh Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
62) CWP-32812-2024
Mukhtyar Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
63) CWP-32904-2024
Anita ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
64) CWP-32923-2024
Maina Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -11-
65) CWP-33202-2024
Rohtash Kumar and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
66) CWP-33239-2024
Chameli Devi and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
67) CWP-34750-2024
Lilu Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
68) CWP-35031-2024
Ramesh Chand and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
69) CWP-4107-2025
Satbir and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
70) CWP-4274-2023
Bala Devi and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -12-
71) CWP-4357-2025
Anti Devi and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
72) CWP-6899-2025
Chhaju Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
73) CWP-8488-2024
Rameshwar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
74) CWP-24353-2025
Shamsher Singh and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
75) CWP-18571-2025
Inder Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
76) CWP-518-2026
Inder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -13-
77) CWP-34174-2025
Surender Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
78) CWP-38015-2025
Sumitra ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
79) CWP-38364-2025
Jagat Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
80) CWP-33649-2025
Kartaro Devi @ Kartari Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
81) CWP-37675-2025
Ompati ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
82) CWP-1660-2026
Karam Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -14-
83) CWP-2371-2026
Rajender Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
84) CWP-2032-2026
Jai Bhagwan ....Petitioner
Versus
Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University
of Health Sciences Rohtak and others ...Respondents
85) CWP-6598-2026
Meena Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
86) CWP-6925-2026
Suresho Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
87) CWP-13480-2026
Anil Kumar and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -15-
88) CWP-11591-2026
Shanti Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
89) CWP-6415-2026
Amrit Lal and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
90) CWP-16074-2026
Kalawati ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
91) CWP-6950-2026
Karnailo Devi and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
92) CWP-6928-2026
Sarabjeet ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
93) CWP-19651-2026
Chusti Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -16-
94) CWP-15359-2026
Bhulli Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
95) CWP-16953-2020
Virpal and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate,
Mr. Nikhil Lather, Advocate and
Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-15498-2025).
Mr. Surinder Kumar Daaria, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-2361-2025).
Mr. Sunil K. Dhanda, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-4274-2023; CWP-4107-2025;
CWP-15339-2025 & CWP-15616-2025).
Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-24474-2025; CWP-23320-2025;
CWP-25655-2025; 26008-2025; CWP-26442-2025;
CWP-19651-2026; CWP-24353-2025 & CWP-1660-2026).
Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate and
Mr. Jasbir Singh Mor, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-20263-2024; CWP-22655-2024;
CWP-32812-2024 & CWP-6899-2025).
Mr. Bishan Dass Rana, Advocate and
Mr. Abhinav Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-30823-2024; CWP-30819-2024;
CWP-33239-2024; CWP-33202-2024, CWP-16525-2024,
CWP-15363-2025 & CWP-15803-2025).
Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-16074-2026).
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -17-
Mr. Paramvir Singh Doon, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-2371-2026).
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate
Mr. Paramjit Singh, Advocate and
Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-31798-2024).
Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-27971-2024).
Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-6415-2026).
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-14075-2025).
Mr. Pardeep Sehrawat, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-13944-2025).
Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-34174-2025).
Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-13480-2026).
Mr. Rajesh K. Dhankhar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-38364-2025).
Ms. Sunita Devi, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-25383-2024).
Mr. Surya Bhan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-33649-2025).
Mr. Himanshu Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-23678-2025).
Mr. Jangjit Singh Dahiya, Advocate and
Mr. Phool Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-8488-2024).
Mr. Hritik Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-11109-2025).
Mr. Mohd. Shahid Hussain, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-31993-2024).
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -18-
Mr. Chander Pal Tiwana, Advocate and
Ms. Swati Tiwana, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-518-2026).
Mr. Vikram Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-6598-2026).
Mr. Ramanpreet Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Khushkaran K. Goyal, Advocate,
Mr. Amanjot Singh Sidhu, Advocate and
Mr. S.S. Kalra, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (CWP-11591-2026).
Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-6950-2026).
Mr. Parth Goyal, Advocate,
Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Advocate and
Ms. Shallu Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-13853-2025;
CWP-23439-2025; CWP-6925-2026 & CWP-6928-2026).
Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate and
Mr. Vishesh Dhoka, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-23730-2025).
Mr. Dharamveer Phour, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (CWP-15359-2026).
Mr. S.K. Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-20263-2024; CWP-11600-2025;
CWP-23016-2024; CWP-23034-2024; CWP-32923-2024 &
CWP-4357-2025).
Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate and
Ms. Alka Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-15546-2025; CWP-15508-2025;
CWP-15425-2025 & CWP-14094-2025).
Mr. Sunil Goswami, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-27855-2024 & CWP-25874-2024).
Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-27204-2025; CWP-37675-2025;
CWP-17966-2025; CWP-38015-2025 & CWP-2032-2026).
Mr. S.K. Liberhan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-25933-2024; CWP-31138-2024;
CWP-28537-2024 & CWP-25184-2024).
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -19-
Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate and
Ms. Riya Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-32904-2024 & CWP-29601-2024).
Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-1279-2025; CWP-23739-2025 &
CWP-24477-2025).
Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-18571-2025) & CWP-23837-2025).
Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-34750-2024; CWP-28868-2024 &
CWP-23667-2025).
Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate,
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Riya Kangra, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-35031-2024).
Mr. Kuldeep Khandelwal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-12845-2025; CWP-15812-2025;
CWP-27448-2025; CWP-15765-2025; CWP-22530-2025;
CWP-18336-2025; CWP-23211-2025 & CWP-16953-2020).
Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate and
Ms. Aashima Jindal, Advocate
for respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate,
Ms. Chetna Rao, Advocate,
Mr. Khushwant Saharan, Advocate and
Ms. Aashima Jindal, Advocate
for the respondent-PGI, Rohtak (in CWP-2032-2026).
Mr. A.P.S. Sekhon, Advocate
for respondent No.4 (in CWP-16953-2020).
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ
petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common
judgment. Upon a careful consideration of the pleadings and the factual matrix
of the present writ petitions, this Court is of the view that the cases can broadly
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -20-
be classified into the following two categories:
a) Category I consists of those cases wherein the petitioners, who
were appointed on part-time/temporary/contractual basis prior to
01.01.2006, but were regularized subsequent to the said date, are
claiming pensionary benefits under the Old Pension scheme. Crucially,
the petitioners seek the counting of their past service rendered on part-
time basis as qualifying service for pension.
b) Category II consists of those cases wherein the petitioners are claiming
benefits under the Old Pension Scheme on the basis of Office
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 issued by the State of Haryana on the
ground that they were appointed against posts/vacancies that were
notified/advertised before the introduction of the New pension scheme.
2. At this juncture, it must be pointed out that in several of the
aforementioned writ petitions, the respondents have failed to file their written
statements despite the imposition of costs. Consequently, this Court is
constrained to adjudicate the present bunch of cases on the basis of the
pleadings and replies that have been filed thus far, so as to ascertain the stand
taken by the respondents on the issues involved.
CONTENTIONS
Category I: (for the sake of brevity, facts are taken from CWP-20263-2024)
3. CWP-20263-2024 has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure P-5) whereby the
respondent department declined the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. It is
further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -21-
respondents to fix the pension, release the pensionary benefits, amount of
gratuity and all the retiral benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum after
considering the whole service period of the petitioner, i.e., prior to and after the
regularization of his service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
petitioner was appointed on the post of Sweeper on Part Time basis on
15.02.2002, and he joined his duties on the same day at Government Primary
School, Nangal Mohan Pur, District Mahendergarh. His services were
subsequently regularized on the post of peon vide order dated 16.05.2016 and
he was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Bewal, District
Mahendergarh. He retired on 31.05.2023 after attaining the age of
superannuation.
5. It is submitted that despite the petitioner’s service spanning more
than 21 years, the respondents have failed to release his pensionary benefits and
gratuity by taking into account his entire length of service. It is further
contended that the petitioner has also been wrongly denied the benefit of the
Old Pension Scheme. Learned counsel argued that the action of the
respondents is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law,
inasmuch as the service rendered by an employee on an ad hoc, temporary, or
part-time basis prior to regularization is liable to be counted as qualifying
service for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits. Reliance in this
regard has been placed on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in
LPA-1892 of 2019, titled as ‘State of Haryana v. Jai Bhagwan‘ and Harbans
Lal v. The State of Punjab and others 2010 SCC Online P&H 8181. It has
also been pointed out that the Special Leave Petition against the judgment in
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -22-
Jai Bhagwan (supra) has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 20-09-2024 (SLP (C) No(s). 21427-21435/2024).
6. When no response was given to his requests, the petitioner served
a legal notice dated 14.10.2023 (Annexure P-2), which was not responded to by
the respondents. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing CWP No. 117 of
2024, which was disposed of on 08.01.2024 with a direction to the respondents
to decide the legal notice. The respondent-department passed a non-speaking
order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure P-5) declining the petitioner’s claim on the
ground that he is not entitled to benefits under the Old Pension Scheme.
7. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that the
petitioner was initially appointed on a part-time basis and his services were
regularized w.e.f. 16.05.2016 under the regularization policy dated 11.11.2003,
based on his seniority and availability of a regular sanctioned post. He did not
fulfill the terms and conditions of the earlier regularization policy dated
30.12.1998/25.02.1999, hence his regularization was rightly carried out in
2016.
8. It is further contended that as per the State Government
notification dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure R-1), the New Pension Scheme is
applicable to employees who joined as regular employees on or after
01.01.2006. Since the petitioner joined as a regular employee on 16.05.2016,
he is governed by the New Pension Scheme. A PRAN Number has already
been allotted to him, and he has also deposited his share.
9. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on Rule 3.17A (g) (iii) of
the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol-II as applicable to the State of Haryana, and
contends that services rendered on a “Part Time” basis cannot be computed for
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -23-
pensionary benefits. Therefore, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered under
the Old Pension Scheme.
10. Learned counsel argues that the reliance placed by the petitioners
on the judgment in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab 1988 SCC Online P&H
338, Harbans Lal‘s case (supra), and the decision in Jai Bhagwan‘s case
(supra) is completely misplaced and distinguishable on facts. It is submitted
that in Harbans Lal‘s case (supra), the employees were appointed on daily
wage basis after 01.01.2004, and their GPF accounts were opened by the
department while they were working on daily wage basis, which is not the
factual matrix in the present petitions. Furthermore, in Kesar Chand‘s case
(supra), only work-charge service was ordered to be counted for pension
purposes, and the Full Bench of this Court struck down Rule 3.17(ii) of the
PCS Rules Vol. II. However, the relevant rule in the present cases is Rule
3.17A(g)(iii) of the PCS Rules Vol. II as applicable to the State of Haryana,
which specifically excludes part-time service from being computed for
pensionary benefits. This rule was never considered in the earlier judgments
relied upon by the petitioners. It is emphasized that part-time employees are
not holding any civil post, as they work for a part of the day and are free to
work elsewhere, and such service is paid from the contingent fund. Learned
counsel also relies on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
CWP No. 13153 of 2015, titled as ‘Mukhtyari Devi v. State of Haryana‘,
wherein the benefit of counting of past service was denied to an employee who
was working on part-time basis.
11. It is further argued that the dismissal of the SLP in Jai Bhagwan’s
case (supra) does not amount to an ipso-facto approval of the High Court’s
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -24-
decision, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically kept the “question of law
open” to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, this Court is not
precluded from considering the contentions raised by the respondents,
especially when the applicable rule was not adjudicated upon in the earlier
decisions. Moreover, it is submitted that in certain other cases pertaining to
part-time service, the Division Bench of this Court has passed interim orders
staying the operation of the judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches,
including in LPA Nos. 2357 of 2024 and 568 of 2025.
12. Additionally, learned counsel argues that several petitioners had
accepted the terms and conditions of their regularization/appointment orders,
which specifically mentioned that their service conditions would be governed
by the New Pension Scheme, and they also opened their PRAN accounts under
the said Scheme. Since they have not challenged these conditions, they are
now legally estopped from raising a claim for conversion to the Old Pension
Scheme.
Category II: (for the sake of brevity, facts are taken from CWP-15498-2025)
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners in CWP-15498-2025 inter alia
contends that the Haryana Staff Selection Commission had issued an
advertisement dated 01.07.2005 inviting applications for the post of JBT
Teachers, which was subsequently withdrawn vide public notice dated
23.06.2006. Thereafter, Advertisement No.6/2006 dated 20.07.2006 (Annexure
P-1) was issued for the same posts. The petitioners, who were fully eligible,
applied, were selected, and appointed pursuant to this advertisement. It is
submitted that some of the petitioners had applied in pursuance to the earlier
advertisement as well, and the subsequent advertisement specifically provided
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -25-
under Note-3 that candidates who had applied earlier would continue to be
eligible, and their eligibility for all purposes, including age and academic
qualification, would be reckoned as on 01.07.2005. The petitioners joined
service between 09.09.2008 and 01.07.2009.
14. Learned counsel submits that the State of Haryana issued a
notification on 28.10.2005 (Annexure P-6) amending the Punjab Civil Services
Rules to provide that the rules in Volume-II would not apply to Government
employees appointed on or after 01.01.2006 and that they would be covered by
a “New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme” to be notified by the
Government. However, the Haryana New Pension Scheme, 2008 was notified
for the first time only on 18.08.2008 under Article 309 of the Constitution of
India (Annexure P-8).
15. It is contended that the Government of India issued an office
memorandum dated 17.02.2020 (Annexure P-10), followed by another dated
03.03.2023 (Annexure P-11), wherein it was decided that in all cases where a
Government civil employee is appointed against a post or vacancy which was
advertised/notified for recruitment prior to the date of notification of the
National Pension System i.e. 22.12.2003, a one-time option may be given to be
covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The State of Haryana, on the
same pattern, issued an office memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-
12), granting a one-time option to switch to the Old Pension Scheme to those
State Government employees who have been appointed against a post or
vacancy which was advertised/notified for recruitment/appointment, prior to the
date of notification for New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme i.e.
28.10.2005.
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -26-
16. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners are entitled to the
benefit of the office memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-12) since the
recruitment process for the petitioners commenced with the advertisement
dated 01.07.2005, which was issued prior to the cut-off date of 28.10.2005.
The subsequent advertisement dated 20.07.2006 (Annexure P-1) was merely a
continuation of the earlier recruitment process, as specifically stated in Note-3
of the advertisement, which preserved the eligibility of candidates who had
applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement. Therefore, the petitioners
squarely fall within the category of employees appointed against posts
advertised prior to the relevant cut-off date.
17. It is further submitted that the cut-off date of 28.10.2005 fixed in
the office memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-12) is patently illegal
and arbitrary. It is argued that the New Pension Scheme was not promulgated
on 28.10.2005; rather, only an amendment was made to the Rules on that date,
and the scheme itself was never in existence. The Haryana New Pension
Scheme, 2008 was notified for the first time on 18.08.2008, and therefore, the
cut-off date for determining eligibility for the Old Pension Scheme should be
18.08.2008, the date of the actual promulgation of the New Pension Scheme.
The State could not adopt one date for determining eligibility and another for
determining pensionary benefits.
18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends
that the one-time option to switch to the Old Pension Scheme was available
only to those employees who had applied pursuant to advertisements issued
prior to the cut-off date of 28.10.2005. It is submitted that the benefit could be
extended only upon the concerned employee establishing, through cogent
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -27-
documentary evidence, that he or she had in fact applied in response to such
advertisement. In this regard, the respondents required the production of the
treasury challan evidencing payment of the application fee, along with any
other relevant documentary proof. It is further argued that none of the
petitioners have placed any such documentary evidence on record. On the other
hand, those employees who were able to produce the requisite proof and
exercised the option within the prescribed period have already been extended
the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme by the respective departments.
19. With regards to the validity of the cut-off date of 28.10.2005,
learned counsel submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-36834-
2025, titled as ‘Sandeep Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others’
has already decided this issue and has concluded that the State Government,
being an independent constitutional body in its affairs, was not bound to
determine cut-off date in the manner as determined by Central Government. It
was further observed that in financial matters, though there is no absolute bar,
scope of interference by Courts is narrow. Accordingly, it was held that there
was no compelling reason to declare the impugned cut-off date as invalid. LPA
No. 839 of 2026 against the aforesaid judgment also stands dismissed on
27.03.2026.
OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS
20. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record with their able assistance.
21. With regards to the cases falling under Category I as noted
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the controversy involved
therein is no longer res integra. In Jai Bhagwan (supra), learned counsel
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -28-
appearing for the appellant-State had specifically contended before the Division
Bench that the employees had initially been engaged on a part-time basis and
had worked only for a few hours each day. Placing reliance upon Rule 3.17A(g)
(iii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II (as applicable to the State of
Haryana), it was argued that the said provision expressly excludes the counting
of service rendered by part-time employees for the purposes of pension. The
Division Bench, however, repelled the aforesaid contention and, placing
reliance upon the judgments in Kesar Chand (supra), Harbans Lal (supra),
and State of Haryana v. Zile Singh (LPA No. 426 of 2016), held as under:
“15. The appellant is claiming that Rule 3.17-A applicable to State of
Haryana is different from State of Punjab. The said rule as reproduced in
the paper-book is noted as below:
xx xx xx
16. The appellant is relying upon Clause (g) of aforesaid rule. From
the perusal of aforesaid clause (g), it comes out that service rendered
by an employee as work charged shall be reckoned for all retiral
benefits provided such service is followed by regular employment, there
is no interruption in two or more spells of service or the interruption
fall within condonable Limits and such service is a whole time
employment and not part-time or portion of day. The appellant claims
that respondent was working as a part-time employee, thus, Rule 3.17-
A is inapplicable to him. Neither from the pleadings nor from impugned
order, it can be culled out that respondent had rendered service as work
charged. He had worked with a school which operates around the year.
If it is assumed that respondent was employed as work charged still his
service cannot be ignored because he had worked For almost two
decades without interruption, It is difficult as well as highly improbable
to believe that a Government school has appointed a peon or water-
carrier for 3-4 hours a day. A peon or water-carrier is required for as
long hours as teachers and Students remain in the school. The
appellant-State by tagging respondents as part-time employees has
misused its position and exploited them. Unemployment in the nation is
well known. A long service of two decades cannot be assumed to be a
part-time service. It appears that appellant uninterruptedly availed
service of respondents for two decades and in the guise of part-timeNEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -29-employment, deprived them from their valuable right of pay and other
allowances. Service of respondent was regularized after two decades
and he worked without interruption. Sub-Clause (ii) of clause (g) of
Rule 3.17-A contemplates interruption in two or more spells of service
because in case of a work charged employee there are always
possibilities of interruption in service. Clause (a) of the aforesaid rule
clearly provides that interrupted or continuous service followed by
confirmation shall be treated as qualifying service. The period of break
is omitted by calculating aggregate service. The respondent has worked
without interruption and break, thus, it would be travesty of justice, if it
is concluded that they are not entitled to counting of service rendered
before their regularization.
17. About two decades back, a Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and other (2006) 4 SCC 1
deprecated practice of appointment of employees On part-time, daily
wages or contract basis. The Court permitted to appoint employees on
contract basis in case of exigencies whereas this Court is inundated with
cases of part-time, daily wages and contractual employees. The State
instead of making appointment on regular basis has adopted practice
of making appointments on part-time or contract basis. On account of
mass unemployment, the people are ready to work for a small amount
and on part-time or contract basis. The State is a model employer and
is not expected to exploit its citizen. Paying a small amount and
depriving people from regular employment is nothing more than
exploitation. India is a welfare and socialist State. The foundation on
which our Constitution rests is equality of status and of opportunity.
Making appointment on part time or contract basis amounts to
violation of object of ‘social and economic justice’ as well as ‘equality
of status and opportunity’ enshrined in the preamble of our
Constitution. This Court is of the considered opinion that State should
amend its policy to make appointments on contract or part-time basis.
18. In the wake of above discussion and findings, we are of the
considered opinion that instant appeals being bereft of merit deserve to
be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.”
(Emphasis added)
22. Admittedly, although the Special Leave Petition preferred against
the judgment in Jai Bhagwan (supra) came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 20.09.2024, the question of law was expressly
kept open to be decided in an appropriate case. Nevertheless, as matters
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -30-
presently stand, the judgment in Jai Bhagwan (supra) continues to hold the
field and remains binding on this Court. Unless and until the said judgment is
overruled, distinguished by a larger Bench, or the legal position is otherwise
altered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is bound to follow the law
declared by the Division Bench.
23. Reliance may also be placed on the judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab, 2019(4) SCT 271,
wherein the following was observed:
“9. The second objection which has been taken by the respondents is that
even if the Old Pension Scheme is applicable upon the petitioner, keeping
in view provisions of the Rule 3.17 A, the service rendered by the
petitioner on part time basis cannot be counted as qualifying service for
the grant of pensionary benefits. The said Rule has already been
interpreted by this Court while deciding CWP No. 626 of 2015 titled Zile
Singh v. State of Haryana and others on 17.03.2015 wherein also a
similar question of law arose. In the said case also the employees
working on part time basis, were seeking the benefit of the part time
service to be treated as a qualifying service for the grant of pensionary
benefits. After relying upon the judgment in Kesar Chand v. State of
Punjab and others, this Court while deciding CWP No. 626 of 2015, on
17.03.2015, held that once an employee has worked with the
respondents though on part time basis, and the said part time service
has been taken into account for regularisation of service of an
employee, the benefit of said service, cannot be denied to be counted as
a qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits. The relevant
portion of the judgment is as under:-
xx xx xx
10. Against the said order LPA No. 426 of 2016 was filed by the
Government of Haryana and vide order dated 18.03.2016, after
noticing the provision of Rule 3.17A, the Division Bench held that only
a short term part time employment and that too under a specific
contingency, has to be ignored while computing the pensionary
benefits. The Division Bench held that where an employee has worked
for a long time and continuously, which is more than a decade, the
same cannot be treated as a part time engagement, and cannot be
ignored while computing the pensionary benefits. The relevant portion
of the judgment of the Division Bench is as under:-
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -31-
xx xx xx
11. The question of law as to whether, the part time service is to be
counted for computing the pensionary benefits again came up for
consideration before this Court in CWP No. 1048 of 2016 titled as Jai
Bhagwan v. State of Haryana & Others, decided on 01.03.2019. In the
said case also, keeping in view the decision of the Coordinate Bench in
Zile Singh‘s Case (Supra) as well the order passed in LPA No. 426 of
2016, the benefit of the service which an employee had rendered on
part time basis continuously for more than 20 years was allowed to be
computed as a qualifying service. The relevant portion of the judgment
is as under:-
xx xx xx
12. The case of the petitioner is covered by the above said judgment.
13. Learned State counsel, has not been able to differentiate the case of
the petitioner from the judgments which have been cited above to prove
that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits of counting her part
time service as a qualifying service after the services of the petitioner
were regularized.
14. In view of the above, the second objection which has been raised by
the respondents that the part time service rendered by the petitioner
from 1984 till 25.10.2010 cannot be counted as a qualifying service is
liable to be rejected. As the objections raised by the Counsel for the
respondents to deny the benefits are contrary to the settled principle of
law and have already been rejected, petitioner is held entitled to the
grant of the pensionary benefits on total length of her service under
Old Pension Scheme.”
(Emphasis added)
24. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner in CWP-
20263-2024 has rendered continuous service from 15.02.2002 on a part-time
basis and continued to serve without any interruption for more than a decade
before being regularized on 16.05.2016. In these circumstances, this Court is of
the considered view that it would result in manifest injustice if the valuable
service rendered by the petitioner prior to regularization is excluded from
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -32-
consideration for the purpose of pensionary benefits merely because the initial
engagement was on a part-time basis. As observed by the Division Bench in Jai
Bhagwan (supra), instead of making regular appointments, the State has
increasingly resorted to engaging employees on part-time or contractual terms.
Owing to widespread unemployment, individuals are often compelled to accept
such engagements for meagre remuneration. Being a model employer, the State
is expected to act fairly and cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own
employment practices by denying employees the benefit of long and
uninterrupted service rendered solely because their initial engagement was not
on a regular basis.
25. Furthermore, this Court finds no merit in the contention advanced
by learned counsel for the respondents that several of the petitioners had
accepted the terms and conditions contained in their regularization/appointment
orders, which stipulated that their service conditions would be governed by the
New Pension Scheme. Mere acceptance of such terms cannot operate as a
waiver of statutory or constitutional rights, particularly where the employee had
no real bargaining power and the acceptance was a condition precedent for
securing regular employment. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the
judgment of this Court in CWP No. 28761 of 2025 titled as ‘Ranjit Singh v.
State of Punjab‘, wherein it was categorically held that undertakings obtained
from employees compelling them to forgo statutory rights, as a condition of
employment, are unconscionable and void ab initio. It was further held that the
actions of the employer must conform to the constitutional mandate of fairness,
equality, and non-arbitrariness, and cannot override rights conferred by statute.
The relevant extracts from the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -33-
“7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record with their able assistance, the following question arises for
adjudication:
Whether an employee can be denied substantial service rights on
the basis of an undertaking given by him/her on the dictate of
the employer?
8. It transpires that the petitioner was unjustly terminated by the
respondent/Council without issuing a show cause notice or allowing him
an opportunity to defend himself. Vide award dated 28.07.2011
(Annexure P-5), the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana had directed
the petitioner to be reinstated. It was categorically mentioned that he be
granted continuity of service as well as full back wages. Much to the
chagrin of this Court, the act and conduct of the respondent/Council
demonstrates no regard for the said award. A perusal of the resolution
(Annexure P-6) clearly indicates that the respondent/Council essentially
threatened the petitioner to his furnish an affidavit for not claiming the
arrears legitimately accrued to him, if he wished to be reinstated.
Palpably, the respondent/Council has much exceeded its authority by
dragooning the petitioner into giving up his rights for an opportunity to
earn his livelihood.
9. Visibly, the petitioner did not have a real choice and had to submit to
the whimsical approach of the respondent/Council as he was
struggling financially for over a decade subsequent to his abrupt and
illegal termination. As such, in view of Sections 16, 19A and 23 the
Indian Contract Act, 1872, which declares any contract which has been
entered into under undue influence as voidable or where the object of
the said contract is against public policy, as void, the
respondent/Council cannot be allowed to take shelter of the affidavit
(Annexure P-7) to justify denying the petitioner his legal right,
especially in view of the fact that it was them who erroneously
terminated his services in the year 1994.
xx xx xx
16. It must be noted that there is an inherent imbalance of power
between an employer and an employee. The employer, very
unambiguously, controls the source of livelihood of the employee and
thereby is in a position of influence. When such employer is an
instrumentality of the State itself, a unique opportunity is presented to
lead as an example. As such, it is vital that a fair procedure established
by law, preventing arbitrary abuse of power is strictly adhered
to. Demanding undertakings that lack legal sanctity or capriciouslyNEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -34-denying benefit of the services rendered by an employee is inconsistent
with the constitutional guarantees.
17. Unfortunately, the practice of extracting undertakings from
employees who have been reinstated after tedious litigation is rather
common. These undertakings are exploitative as they often pertain to
forgoing past service benefits including arrears of salary, increments,
continuity of service and retiral benefits and are obtained by placing
the employees under duress. Often the reinstated employees are issued
fresh appointment letters, as is the case in the matter at hand, to deny
them any benefits of their past service, which directly impacts their
regularization, seniority and pensionary benefits. Considering that
livelihoods are at stake, the employees often remain silent in the face of
these exploitative practices. This Court cannot allow an employer to
take advantage of their employees’ financial circumstances to bend
them to their will. As such, the question framed above is answered in the
following terms-
Such exploitative undertakings are void ab initio since no
employee can be forced to contract out of his statutory rights.
18. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, this Court cannot
condone the highly iniquitous arm-twisting tactics employed by the
respondent/Council as it renders the entire exercise tainted by the vice
of arbitrariness. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-12) is hereby set aside.
The petitioner shall be entitled to counting of past service and other
benefits as per judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal v. State
of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Jai
Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019. The respondents are directed to pass an
appropriate order in this regard within 03 months from the date of
receiving a certified copy of this order.”
(Emphasis added)
26. Moreover, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
respondents on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in Mukhtyari Devi
(supra) is wholly misplaced. The said decision has subsequently been
distinguished by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7409 of
2021, titled as ‘Virender Singh v. State of Haryana‘. After examining the
factual and legal position, the Co-ordinate Bench held that the ratio of
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -35-
Mukhtyari Devi (supra) was inapplicable to the controversy before it and
observed as follows:
“11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court while passing order in CWP-13153-2015
titled as Mukhtyari Devi v. State of Haryana and others on 31.01.2017
has declined the said benefit as being claimed by the petitioner in the
present petition.
12. It may be noticed that judgment in Mukhtyari Devi (supra) is by
simply interpreting the rules whereas, subsequent to the said judgment
the same rules have been interpreted to mean that where an employee
though, working on part-time basis but continued in service for more
than one decade, the said service cannot be treated part-time service so
as to deny the benefit to be treated the same as qualifying service for
the grant of pensionary benefits. Hence, no benefit of the judgment in
Mukhtyari Devi (supra) can be given to the respondents so as to deny
the benefit to the petitioner.”
(Emphasis added)
27. Accordingly, in view of the aforementioned precedents, this Court
holds that the petitioners falling under Category I are entitled to have the
service rendered by them on a part-time, contractual, or temporary basis prior
to their regularization reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of
pensionary benefits. Once such past service is taken into account, the
respondents cannot deny them the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme merely
on the ground that their regularization took place after the introduction of the
New Pension Scheme.
28. With regards to the cases falling under Category II as noted hereinabove,
at the outset, it is necessary to observe that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Sandeep Kumar (supra) has conclusively decided the issue of validity of the
cut-off date of 28.10.2005 given in the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023
(Annexure P-12 in CWP-15498-2025). The Co-ordinate Bench found no
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -36-
compelling reason to declare the impugned cut-off date as invalid and LPA No.
839 of 2026 against the aforesaid judgment also stands dismissed on
27.03.2026.
29. Proceeding further, the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023
issued by the State of Haryana provides that all State Government employees
who were appointed against posts or vacancies that had been
advertised/notified for recruitment prior to the notification of the New Pension
Scheme, i.e. 28.10.2005, but who joined service on or after 01.01.2006 and
consequently came to be governed by the Haryana New Pension Scheme, 2008,
would be afforded a one-time option to be covered under the provisions of the
Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II (now the Haryana Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 2016), i.e. the Old Pension Scheme. For the sake of ready
reference, the relevant extract of the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023
(Annexure P-12) is reproduced below:
“5. The State Government, after due consideration, has decided that:
(i) in all cases where the State Government employee(s)/ servant(s)
has been appointed against a post or vacancy which was
advertised / notified for, recruitment / appointment, prior to the
date of notification for New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme
i.e. 28.10.2005, and is covered under the Defined Contribution
Pension Scheme (Haryana New Pension Scheme, 2008) on joining
service on or after 01.01.2006, may be given a one-time option to
be covered under the Punjab CSR Vol.-II (now Haryana Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 2016). This option may be exercised by
the concerned State Government employee(s) / servant(s) latest by
31st August, 2023.
(ii) Those Government employee(s) / servant(s) who are eligible to
exercise option in accordance with point no. (i) above, but who do
not exercise this option by the stipulated date of 31st August, 2023,
shall continue to be covered by the Defined Contributory Pension
Scheme (Haryana New Pension Scheme, 2008).
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -37-
(iii) the option once exercised shall be final…”
30. In CWP-15498-2025, the respondent-Commission had issued an
advertisement dated 01.07.2005 inviting applications for the post of JBT
Teachers, which was subsequently withdrawn vide public notice dated
23.06.2006. Thereafter, Advertisement No.6/2006 dated 20.07.2006 (Annexure
P-1) was issued for the same posts. Note-3 of the said advertisement provided
that candidates who had applied earlier would continue to be eligible, and their
eligibility for all purposes, including age and academic qualification, would be
reckoned as on 01.07.2005. Note-3 of the Advertisement dated 20.07.2006
(Annexure P-1) is reproduced as follows:
“NOTE:-3 The candidates who had applied earlier against Advt. dated
1.7.2005 issued by the Education Department. Haryana and which has
subsequently been withdrawn vide Public Notice published in varIous
newspaper on 23.6.2006 shall also be eligible Their eligibility for all
purposes, including academic qualification and age etc., will be
reckoned as on 1.7.2005. They will be exempted from the payment of
application fee. However, such candidates will have to apply afresh with
the proof of payment of application fee.”
31. A plain reading of the aforesaid Note-3 leaves little room for doubt
that the subsequent recruitment process was not conceived as an entirely
independent or de novo exercise, but was, in substance, a continuation of the
recruitment process originally initiated through the advertisement dated
01.07.2005. By expressly preserving the eligibility of candidates who had
applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement and exempting them from the
payment of a fresh application fee, the respondents themselves created a legal
fiction that treated the recruitment process as having its genesis in the original
advertisement issued prior to the cut-off date of 28.10.2005.
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -38-
32. The underlying object of the Office Memorandum dated
08.05.2023 (Annexure P-12) is to extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme
to those employees whose recruitment process had commenced prior to the cut-
off date of 28.10.2005, but whose actual appointment was made on or after
01.01.2006 owing to administrative delays or other circumstances beyond their
control. The emphasis under the Office Memorandum is on the date on which
the post or vacancy was advertised/notified, and not merely on the date of
appointment.
33. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the posts in
question were initially advertised on 01.07.2005. As already held hereinabove,
the subsequent recruitment was not an independent or de novo exercise but a
continuation of the earlier recruitment process. Consequently, the petitioners
satisfy the essential condition prescribed under Clause 5(i) of the Office
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 and, therefore, fall squarely within its
beneficial ambit. The respondents cannot be permitted to defeat the very
purpose of the Office Memorandum by adopting a hyper-technical or pedantic
interpretation, particularly when the delay in completion of the recruitment
process was not attributable to the petitioners. Any such construction would
frustrate the beneficial object sought to be achieved by the policy and would
result in manifest injustice.
34. The aforementioned principle has also been affirmed by the
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Inspector Rajendra Singh v. UOI,
2017 SCC Online Del 7879 and Dr. Davinder Singh Brar v. Union Of India,
2020 SCC Online Del 2771. Significantly, the Special Leave Petition preferred
against the judgment in Dr. Davinder Singh Brar (supra) was dismissed by the
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -39-
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.02.2021. Consequently, the legal position
enunciated therein has attained finality.
35. In a similar vein, the petitioner in CWP 31993-2024 had joined as
a peon in GSSS Batta, Kaithal on 13.01.2006 against an ex-gratia post since his
father had died in harness on 13.10.2005. Admittedly, his mother had applied
for appointment on a compassionate basis on 25.10.2005, i.e., prior to the cut-
off date of 28.10.2005. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the Office
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023. The vacancy itself arose upon the death of the
petitioner’s father before the cut-off date, and the claim for compassionate/ex
gratia appointment was also initiated prior thereto. The subsequent
appointment of the petitioner on 13.01.2006 was merely the culmination of a
process that had commenced before 28.10.2005 and was delayed for reasons
beyond his control. Denying the petitioner the benefit of the Old Pension
Scheme solely because the formal appointment was made after 01.01.2006
would defeat the very object of the Office Memorandum and would be unjust
and inequitable.
CONCLUSION
36. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present bunch of petitions
is disposed of in the following terms:
a) In the cases falling under Category I, the impugned orders denying
pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme are hereby quashed
and set aside. The respondents are directed to count the past service
rendered by the petitioners on a part-time/temporary/contractual
basis prior to their regularization as qualifying service for pension, andNEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases -40-
accordingly fix/release their consequential pensionary and retiral benefits
under the Old Pension Scheme along with arrears within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
b) In the cases falling under Category II, the petitioners are entitled to the
benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023, and accordingly
are directed to exercise their option to switch over to the Old Pension
Scheme within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order. Upon receipt of options, the respondents shall process
their claims and fix/release their consequential pensionary and retiral
benefits under the Old Pension Scheme along with arrears within a
further period of six weeks.
37. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
38. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
09.07.2026
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
NEHA
2026.07.24 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
