AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to open/allocate GPF Account number, to the petitioners by converting it from NPS to OPS (so as to make them admissible to Pension Scheme Rules for University Employees of B.P.S.M.V. Khanpur Kalan (Sonipat), 2012 (Annexure P-9) enforced w.e.f. 18.08.2006 i.e. the date of establishment of respondent/University).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia, contended that the petitioners were appointed on regular basis as Lecturers/Reader in Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan, including its constituent institution, M.S.M. Institute of Ayurveda, during the years 2006-2007. It is submitted that the University was established by an Act dated 18.08.2006 and under Section 36 thereof, the posts and employees of the pre-existing framed the University Employees Pension Scheme, 2012 for bringing eligible employees under the Old Pension Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although contributions towards CPF were being deducted from the petitioners’ salaries, however, the without obtaining their option. It is further submitted that the petitioners made several representations and also served a legal notice dated 29.11.2025, but no action was taken thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners were appointed against posts which were already in existence on 18.08.2006, and petitioners No. 1 to 3 were appointed even before that date. It is, thus, contended that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the University Pension Scheme and cannot be denied the Old Pension Scheme merely because some of their appointments were made after 18.08.2006. He has further submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-20263-2024 and connected cases, titled as Om Prakash vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 09.07.2026.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, has submitted that he would be satisfied if the legal notice (Annexure P-10) of the petitioners is decided by respondent No.4 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4 and filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.
Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, as well as learned counsel for respondent No.4 have submitted that they have no objection, in case a direction is issued to the respondent No.4 for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice (Annexure P-10) submitted by the petitioners by passing a speaking order.
Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent No.4 is directed to consider the legal notice (Annexure P-10) of the petitioners and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.4.
Disposed of, accordingly.