Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
257+246+108+111
Date of decision: 24.08.2026
1. CWP-10970-2025 (O&M)
Suresh Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CONNECTED CASES:
Sr.
No.
Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
2 CWP-10972-2025
(O&M)
SATYWAN SINGH
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
3 CWP-11201-2025 MANISHA NEE
STATE OF HARYANA
DEEPA
AND OTHERS
4 CWP-11670-2025
(O&M)
SATISH KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
5 CWP-12766-2025 BILENDER
KUMAR AND
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
OTHERS
6 CWP-13102-2025 MANISH SHARMA
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
7 CWP-13382-2025 VIKAS KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
8 CWP-13385-2025 ANIL KUMAR AND
STATE OF HARYANA
OTHERS
AND OTHERS
9 CWP-13618-2025 JITENDER AND
STATE OF HARYANA
OTHERS
AND OTHERS
10 CWP-14952-2025 SUKHDEV SINGH
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
11 CWP-15123-2025 RAVI SINGH STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
12 CWP-15184-2025 HEMANT KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
13 CWP-15191-2025 SUNIL KUMAR
SECRETARY TO
GOVERNOR, RAJ
BHAWAN, HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 2
14 CWP-16556-2025 RAKESH KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
15 CWP-17119-2025 SAMUNDER
STATE OF HARYANA
SINGH
AND OTHERS
16 CWP-19201-2025 SANJEEV KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
17 CWP-19652-2025 RAMESH KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
18 CWP-2034-2025 KARAN SINGH
UTTAR HARYANA
BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
19 CWP-21604-2025 ANIL KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA
KAMRA AND
AND OTHERS
OTHERS
20 CWP-2373-2026 JAI KISHAN AND
STATE OF HARYANA
OTHERS
AND OTHERS
21 CWP-2638-2026 BALKAR SINGH
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
22 CWP-28381-2025 AMIT LOHAN AND
STATE OF HARYANA
OTHERS
AND OTHERS
23 CWP-295-2026 NARESH KUMARI
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
24 CWP-30840-2025 GURNAM SINGH
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
25 CWP-33744-2024 VIJAY SINGH AND
STATE OF HARYANA
OTHERS
AND OTHERS
26 CWP-34843-2025 DARSHNA
STATE OF HARYANA
KUMARI
AND OTHERS
27 CWP-36090-2025 ASHOK KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
28 CWP-36424-2025 KAMLESH STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
29 CWP-36610-2025 KUSUM LATA STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
30 CWP-37405-2025 SUDESH RANI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
31 CWP-37748-2025 ANJU AND
STATE OF HARYANA
ANOTHER
AND OTHERS
32 CWP-37838-2025 NARESH KUMAR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
AND OTHERS
33 CWP-37964-2025 CHANAN RAM
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
34 CWP-38058-2025 SURESH KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 3
35 CWP-39266-2025 BALRAJ SINGH STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
36 CWP-39335-2025 MAHENDER
STATE OF HARYANA
SINGH AND
AND OTHERS
OTHERS
37 CWP-4669-2025 KARAM PAL AND
STATE OF HARYANA
ANR
AND OTHERS
38 CWP-481-2026 HARI KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
39 CWP-5040-2026 ANUNEET KAUR
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
AND OTHERS
40 CWP-7338-2026 SANDEEP KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
41 CWP-8891-2025 SANJEEV AND
STATE OF HARYANA
OTHERS
THROUGH ADDL
CHIEF SECRETARY
AND OTHERS
42 CWP-11489-2026 KAVITA KUMARI
STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
AND OTHERS
43 CWP-12644-2026 SATPAL STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
44 CWP-25294-2023 SONA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
45 CWP-25441-2023 SHEELA AND
STATE OF HARYANA
ANOTHER
AND OTHERS
46 CWP-25566-2026 REETU AND
STATE OF HARYANA
OTHERS
AND OTHERS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-25566-2026
CWP Nos.10970, 11670 and 10972 of 2025.
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Bikram S. Patwalia, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Kush, Advocate
and Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-33744-2024.
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.13618, 15184, 2034,
34843, 37878, 4669 of 2025 and CWP-11489-2026.
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 4
Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-8891-2025.
Mr. Aman Pal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Rajender Komar, Advocate
Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate
and Mr. Jayditya Mohan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-2373-2026.
Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Karan Ranjha, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-21604-2025.
Mr. J.S. Toor, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-4050-2026.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate
and Mr. Shubhkarman Singh Gill, Advocate
for petitioner No.5 in CWP-33744-2024.
Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-19201-2025.
Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-28381-2025.
Mr. Tushar Kaushik, Advocate
with Mr. Mukul Khatri, Advocate (through V.C.)
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-12766-2025.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-2638-2026.
Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-15191-2025.
Mr. Karanvir Singh Khehar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-38058-2025.
Mr. Sandeep Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.39266 & 16556 of 2025.
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate
with Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 5
and Ms. Anagya R. Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-2945-2026,
CWP-30840-2025 and CWP-30852-2025.
Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-11201-2025.
Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate
and Ms. Alka Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.13102, 13382, 13385,
14952, 36090 and 39335 of 2025.
Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate
with Mr. Rohit Duggal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-36610-2025.
Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Advocate
with Mr. Parth Goyal, Advocate
and Ms. Shallu Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-37964-2025.
Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate
with Mr. Arun Sood, Advocate
and Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-25294-2023
and CWP-25441-2023.
Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP-2034-2025
and for respondents No.3 and 4 in CWP-8891-2025.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
CM-6599-CWP-2026 IN CWP-10970-2025
CM-6600-CWP-2026 IN CWP-11670-2025
CM-6598-CWP-2026 IN CWP-10972-2025
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.
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 6
Learned counsel for the applicant(s)/petitioner(s), at the
outset, wishes to withdraw these applications.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES
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 conveniently be classified into the following four categories:-
a) Category I , pertain to cases relating to the
petitioners who were appointed on or after 01.01.2006 but
before 18.08.2008 and who seek the benefit of the Old
Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "OPS") by
contending that 18.08.2008, being the date on which the
Haryana New Pension Scheme, 2008 was notified, ought to
be treated as the relevant cut-off date instead of
28.10.2005.
b) Category II , pertain to cases relating to the
petitioners who were initially appointed on part-time/ad
hoc/temporary/contractual basis prior to 01.01.2006 and
they were regularized on the basis of their past service
rendered on part-time/ad hoc/temporary/contractual basis,
after 01.01.2006.
c) Category III , pertain to cases relating to the
petitioners who participated in a recruitment process
pursuant to an advertisement issued prior to 28.10.2005,
but whose appointment was made after 01.01.2006.
d) Category IV , pertains to cases relating to
appointment of petitioners on compassionate/ex-gratia
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 7
grounds where the death in harness and/or initiation of the
claim for compassionate appointment took place prior to
28.10.2005, but the formal appointment was made
thereafter.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being noticed
from CWP-10970-2025 .
3. 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.
4. 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
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 8
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 ).
5. 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 .
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
Category I
7. 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 .
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 9
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 .
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 10
12. 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.
Category II
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. In the present bunch of cases falling under Category II , the
learned State counsel has not been able to point out any distinguishing
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 11
factor which would take the petitioners outside the ratio of the aforesaid
judgments.
16. 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.
17. The writ petitions falling under Category II are accordingly
allowed.
Category III
18. 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).
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 12
19. 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.
20. 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.
Category IV
21. The cases falling under Category IV relate to appointment
on compassionate/ex-gratia grounds.
22. 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
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 13
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.
23. 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.
24. The writ petitions falling under Category IV are
accordingly allowed.
CONCLUSION
25. In view of the foregoing discussions, the present bunch of
writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:
a) Category I : The writ petitions are dismissed.
(b) Category II : The writ petitions are allowed. The
impugned orders denying pensionary benefits by excluding
the pre-regularisation service of the petitioners are
quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to
count the service rendered by the petitioners on part-
time/ad hoc/temporary/contractual basis prior to
regularization as qualifying service for pensionary benefits
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.

CWP-10970-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 14
and extend them the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme
(OPS) along with consequential pensionary and retiral
benefits, including arrears, within a period of 06 weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(c) Category III : The writ petitions are allowed. The
petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of the Office
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 and they shall exercise the
requisite option for switching over to the Old Pension
Scheme (OPS) within a period of 06 weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of the
options, the respondents shall process the claims and
release the consequential pensionary and retiral benefits,
including arrears, within a further period of 06 weeks.
(d) Category IV : The writ petitions are allowed. The
petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of the Office
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 and shall exercise the
requisite option for switching over to the Old Pension
Scheme within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of the
options, the respondents shall process their claims and
extend them the consequential benefits under the Old
Pension Scheme within a further period of 06 weeks.
26. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
27. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected cases.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
24.08.2026
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MOHD YAKUB
2026.09.01 14:28
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.