Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

Prayer in these applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC is for amendment of head note and prayer clause (a) of CWP Nos.10970, 11670 and 10972 of 2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant(s)/petitioner(s), at the outset, wishes to withdraw these applications.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

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 conveniently be classified into the following four categories:-

For the sake of convenience, the facts are being noticed from CWP-10970-2025.

Prayer in the writ petition (CWP-10970-2025) filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned condition contained in para 5(i) of the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-18), issued by the respondent/Finance Department, whereby 28.10.2005 has been prescribed as the cut-off date for determining the eligibility of the petitioners for the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners by extending the benefit of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) by treating 18.08.2008 as cut-off date, instead of 28.10.2005, with all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present writ petitions fall into the aforesaid four categories. It is further not in dispute that the controversy involved in Categories II to IV stands substantially covered by the principles laid down by this Court in State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan (LPA No.1892 of 2019), Kesar Chand vs. State of Haryana and others, 1988 (2) PLR 223, Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and others, 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 8181, State of Haryana and others vs. Zile Singh (LPA-426-2016), Jeewan Lata vs State of Punjab and others, 2019(4) SCT 271, Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP-12826-2017), Bimla Devi vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others (CWP-1672-2026), Jagdish vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others (CWP-4590-2026) and Om Prakash v. State of Haryana and others (CWP-20263-2024).

Learned State counsel is not in a position to distinguish the cases falling under Categories II to IV from the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments. However, with regard to Category I, learned State counsel submits that the issue has already been adjudicated upon by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, passed in CWP-36834-2025 and connected cases, decided on 22.12.2025, wherein the challenge to the cut-off date of 28.10.2005 was rejected. The ratio of law laid down in the said judgment has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-587-2026, titled as ASI Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 27.02.2026.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

The challenge raised by the petitioners falling under Category I to the cut-off date of 28.10.2005 prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 is no longer res integra.

The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sandeep Kumar (supra), has already considered the very same challenge. The petitioners therein contended that, since the Haryana New Pension Scheme was notified on 18.08.2008 and was made operative with effect from 01.01.2006, the State ought to have adopted 18.08.2008 as the relevant cut-off date instead of 28.10.2005.

The Coordinate Bench of this Court rejected the said stand of the petitioners therein and held that the State Government, while framing its policy in relation to its employees, was not bound to adopt the same cut-off date as had been adopted by the Central Government. It was further held that the date 28.10.2005 could not be said to be manifestly arbitrary or violative of any fundamental right and the scope of judicial review is limited particularly in cases involving financial implications.

The Court has also noticed that the amendment to the relevant pension rules was carried out on 28.10.2005 and the State Government had, thereafter, introduced the Haryana New Pension Scheme, 2008 with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006. The Coordinate Bench of this Court found no compelling ground to invalidate the cut-off date adopted by the State Government.

The aforesaid judgment has since been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-587-2026, titled as ASI Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 27.02.2026.

In view of the aforesaid binding precedent, this Court finds no ground to reconsider the validity of the cut-off date of 28.10.2005. Consequently, the prayer of the petitioners falling under Category I for substituting 18.08.2008 for 28.10.2005 as the cut-off date is dismissed.

Turning to the cases falling under Category II, this Court is of the considered view that the controversy involved therein is no longer res integra. The issue revolves around the entitlement of employees appointed on a part-time/ad hoc/temporary/contractual basis prior to 01.01.2006 to have such pre-regularization service counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

This Court in Om Prakash (supra) has already adjudicated upon an identical issue. While relying upon the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Jai Bhagwan (supra) and Harbans Lal (supra), this Court held that the State, being a model employer, is not expected to exploit its citizens by engaging them on part-time or contractual basis for decades and then depriving them of the valuable right of pay and other allowances. It is further held that where an employee works continuously for a long period, the service cannot be treated as a mere part-time engagement and the same is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits.

In the present bunch of cases falling under Category II, the learned State counsel has not been able to point out any distinguishing factor which would take the petitioners outside the ratio of the aforesaid judgments.

Applying the settled principles of law, the petitioners falling under Category II are entitled to count their continuous pre-regularization service rendered on part-time, contractual or temporary basis as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Once such service is taken into account, the respondents cannot deny them the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) merely on the ground that their regularization took place after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme.

The writ petitions falling under Category II are accordingly allowed.

Category III comprises those petitioners who participated in a recruitment process pursuant to an advertisement issued prior to 28.10.2005, but whose appointment took place after 01.01.2006. The controversy in these cases is not with regard to the validity of the cut-off date of 28.10.2005, which stands settled in Sandeep Kumar (supra), but whether the recruitment process in which the petitioners participated had commenced prior to the said date. The Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 provides a one-time option to employees appointed against a post or vacancy advertised/notified before 28.10.2005 to switch over to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II (now the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016).

In Om Prakash (supra), the Court considered the case of candidates who had initially applied pursuant to Advertisement dated 01.07.2005. The said advertisement was subsequently withdrawn and Advertisement No.06/2006 dated 20.07.2006 was issued for the same posts. Since Note-3 of the subsequent advertisement preserved the eligibility of candidates who had applied under the earlier advertisement, this Court held that the subsequent recruitment was a continuation of the earlier process and not a fresh recruitment. Accordingly, where the petitioners had applied pursuant to an advertisement issued before 28.10.2005 and the subsequent recruitment was a continuation of that process, the benefit of the Office Memorandum cannot be denied merely because their appointment was made after 01.01.2006.

In the present cases falling under Category III, the petitioners had applied pursuant to an advertisement issued before 28.10.2005 and their subsequent recruitment was a continuation of the said process. As such, they are entitled to the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023.

The cases falling under Category IV relate to appointment on compassionate/ex-gratia grounds.

The aforesaid issue has specifically been considered by this Court in paragraph 35 of the judgment rendered in Om Prakash (supra). In the said case, the employee had joined as a Peon on 13.01.2006 against an ex-gratia post after his father had died in harness on 13.10.2005. The employee's mother had submitted the application for compassionate appointment on 25.10.2005, i.e. prior to the cut-off date of 28.10.2005. However, this Court has held that the vacancy arose upon the death of the employee in harness before the cut-off date and the claim for compassionate appointment had also been initiated prior thereto. The subsequent appointment was merely the culmination of a process which had commenced before 28.10.2005 and the delay in making the formal appointment was not attributable to the claimant.

Accordingly, in cases falling under Category IV, where the death in harness and the claim/application for compassionate or ex-gratia appointment was also initiated prior to the said date, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023.

The writ petitions falling under Category IV are accordingly allowed.

In view of the foregoing discussions, the present bunch of writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases.