Suman Bala vs State Of Haryana And Another

CWP-36812-2026 (O&M) 1 of 12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
128 CWP-36812-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.11.2026
Suman ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana.
*
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a
suitable writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned order dated 18.09.2026 (Annexure P-14) whereby
the claim of the petitioner for including her under the Old Pension
Scheme as per the policy decision of the Government of Haryana notified
vide Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-6), has been
rejected in the most illegal, arbitrary and absurd manner by completely
ignoring the facts and documents attached herewith; And with a further
prayer to issue such other suitable writ, order or direction especially in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 and 2 herein to
include the petitioner in the old pension scheme as per the policy decision
DIVYANSHI
of the Government of Haryana notified vide Office Memorandum dated
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36812-2026 (O&M) 2 of 12
08.05.2023 (Annexure P-6), with all consequential benefits that flows
therefrom.
2. Brief sequence of events in chronological order as stated by
ld. Counsel for the petitioner, are as under: -
2003: Vide Advertisement No.8/2003, the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commission’) had advertised 132
posts of Steno-typist in Hindi (Category No.1).
01.12.2003: Petitioner had applied and had deposited her application fee
of Rs.200/- on 01.12.2003.
July 2004: Thereafter, petitioner had appeared in the written
examination held in July 2004.
It is the contention of the petitioner that as, general elections
were held through out India in October 2004, and Haryana Assembly
elections were held in February 2005, no appointments were made
pursuant to Advt. No. 8/2003 at that stage.
07.03.2008: Thereafter Advt.No.1/2008 dated 07.03.2008 (Annexure P-4)
was advertised vide which posts of Steno-typist (Category No.2) were re-
advertised.
27.2.2009 : Petitioner participated and was selected and appointed as
Steno-typist vide letter of appointment dated 27.02.2009.
18.07.2018: The petitioner was promoted as Accountant on 18.07.2018.
08.05.2023: Respondent-Govt. of Haryana had issued Office
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) permitting eligible
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36812-2026 (O&M) 3 of 12
employees appointed against the vacancies to opt for Old Pension Scheme
(‘OPS’).
12.07.2023: Vide application dated 12.07.2023 (Annexure P-7), Petitioner
exercised her option for coverage under OPS.
23.08.2023: Vide letter dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure P-8), petitioner was
requested to submit documents to support her claim.
28.08.2023: Petitioner submitted a detailed Representation dated
28.8.2023 (Annexure P-9) explaining facts of her case.
29.09.2023: Vide letter dated 29.09.2023 (Annexure P-10), Department
again requested petitioner to submit original application, fee challan etc.
14.05.2026: Petitioner then filed CWP-2123-2024 titled as Suman Bala vs.
State of Haryana and others ; which was disposed of vide order dated
14.05.2026 (Annexure P-13), in terms of order of even date passed in
CWP-2003-2024 titled as Sanveer and others vs. State of Haryana and
others, directing the respondents to decide claim of the petitioner.
18.09.2026: Vide impugned order dated 18.09.2026 (Annexure P-14),
claim of the petitioner has been rejected.
27.10.2026: Hence, present Writ Petition has been filed on 27.10.2026.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the
impugned order would show that the department has totally
misinterpreted the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 to its own
convenience by holding that the selection process should have begun
under the advertisement and must have been completed prior to
01.01.2006 and the petitioner should have been appointed against the
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36812-2026 (O&M) 4 of 12
advertised post only. However, a perusal of the clause no.5 of the Office
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 would reveal that the only condition to
be fulfilled by the employee is that the post against which he was
recruited/appointed must be advertised/ notified prior to coming of new
pension scheme i.e. 28.10.2005. In the present case, the 132 posts of
Steno Typist (Hindi) against which the petitioner was appointed, were
advertised vide advertisement no.8/2003 (category no.1) in the year 2003
by the HSSC, Panchkula against which the application fee of Rs.200/- was
deposited vide challan dated 01.12.2003 in the office of Assistant Treasury
Officer Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana. Hence, since the posts were
notified prior to the coming of the new pension scheme in Haryana (i.e.
28.10.2005) therefore the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be included
under the OPS.
4. It is further submitted that cut off date of 01.01.2006 for
application of OPS would not apply to the petitioner as vide the
Advertisement No.1/2008 dated 07.03.2008 (Annexure P-4), previous 207
posts of Steno-typist (Hindi) (Category No.2) had been re-advertised.
Moreover, as per Note III of the said Advertisement (Annexure P-4), it was
provided that “The candidates who had earlier applied against the
category i.e. 1 to 7 will also be eligible against the advertised post and
such candidates will be exempted from the payment of application fee.” It
is contended that therefore, petitioner , who had previously applied in
Advt. No.8/2003, would also be eligible against the re-advertised post. It is
further contended that therefore, the appointment of the petitioner
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36812-2026 (O&M) 5 of 12
would relate back to the previous Advt. No.8/2003. As such, case of the
petitioner for OPS has been wrongly rejected.
5. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be
allowed; and following prayers be accepted: -
“II) issue a suitable writ, order or direction especially in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated
18.09.2026 (Annexure P-14) whereby the claim of the
petitioner for including her under the Old Pension Scheme as
per the policy decision of the Government of Haryana notified
vide Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-6),
has been rejected in the most illegal, arbitrary and absurd
manner by completely ignoring the facts and documents
attached herewith;
III) issue such other suitable writ, order or direction especially
in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 and
2 herein to include the petitioner in the old pension scheme
as per the policy decision of the Government of Haryana
notified vide Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023
(Annexure P-6), with all consequential benefits that flows
therefrom.”
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel appearing on advance
notice has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner and has contended that the impugned order dated 18.09.2026
(Annexure P-14) is a speaking order; wherein cogent reasons have been
cited for rejecting the case of the petitioner. Admittedly, OPS is only
applicable to persons who had been appointed prior to 01.01.2006;
whereas date of appointment of the petitioner is 27.02.2009. Moreover,
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36812-2026 (O&M) 6 of 12
even though petitioner had exercised her one-time option under the
Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-6), petitioner had
been duly asked to provide supporting documents, which the petitioner
had failed to furnish. As such, there is no merit to the present Writ
Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
7. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned
counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case
file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.
8. It is not disputed that benefit of OPS is only available to
employees, who have been appointed on or before the cut off date of
01.01.2006. Whereas the date of the appointment of the petitioner is
27.02.2009.
9. Further, Contention of the petitioner that in terms of Note III
of the Advertisement No.1/2008 dated 07.03.2008 (Annexure P-4),
appointment of the petitioner would relate back to the previous
Advertisement of 2003, is misconceived and based on a piecemeal reading
of the said Note III, which reads as under: -
“Note:- III The post indicated at category no. 1 was advertised
earlier by the Commission vide Advertisement no. 11/2004
dated 02.12.2004 and category no. 2 to 7 were earlier
advertised vide advertisement no. 8/2003, Category no. 1 to
5 dated 19.11.2003 but against these posts no recruitment
process could be initiated and thereafter the posts mentioned
at Sr. No. 1, 5 to 12 were cancelled by the Commission under
public notice dated 09.11.2005. The candidates who had
earlier applied against the category i.e. 1 to 7 will also be
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36812-2026 (O&M) 7 of 12
eligible against the re-advertised post and such candidates
will be exempted from the payment of application fee.
However, such candidates will have to apply afresh along
with proof of depositing the application fee. They are
required to attach the attested photocopy of Treasury Challan
or I.P.O. as the case may be along with the fresh application
form and will produce the original Treasury Challan or I.P.O.
(Counter Foil) at the time of test/interview.............”
(Emphasis added)
10. A bare reading of the above shows that all that has been
stated above is that candidates who had previously applied are also
eligible to apply. However, it is further unequivocally stipulated that
“ However, such candidates will have to apply afresh along with proof of
depositing the application fee.”. Thus, contention of the petitioner that her
appointment will relate back to the previous advertisement of 2003, is far-
fetched.
11. The aforesaid issue has been considered by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in identical case of CWP-32895-2026 titled as Seema
Rani vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 05.10.2026, Neutral
Citation No. 2026:PHHC: 184242 . The said Writ Petition was dismissed
with the following observations:-
“9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the claim of
the petitioner rests entirely on Note III of Advertisement
No.1/2008 (Annexure P-4), which reads as under:
"Note: III The post indicated at category No. 1 was
advertised earlier by the Commission vide
Advertisement No. 11/2004, dated 2.12.2004 and
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36812-2026 (O&M) 8 of 12
category No. 2 to 7 were earlier advertised vide
advertisement No. 8/2003, category No. 1 to 5, dated
19.11.2003 but against these posts no recruitment
process could be initiated and thereafter the posts
mentioned at Sr. No. 1, 5 to 12 were cancelled by the
Commission under public notice dated 9.11.2005. The
candidates who had earlier applied against the
category i.e. 1 to 7 will also be eligible against the re-
advertised post and such candidates will be exempted
from the payment of application fee. However, such
candidates will have to apply afresh along with proof
of depositing the application fee. They are required to
attach the attested photocopy of Treasury Challan or
I.P.O., as case may be, along with the fresh application
form and will produce the original Treasury
Challan/IPO (Counter foil) at the time of interview,"
(Emphasis added)
10. A plain reading of the above shows that Note III makes
the earlier applicants eligible against the 're-advertised post'
and exempts them from payment of fee, but requires them to
apply afresh. Significantly, unlike Note-3 considered in Om
Prakash (supra), it does not reckon their eligibility as on any
earlier date. Advertisement No.1/2008 (Annexure P-4)
provides that qualification will be determined with regard to
the last date fixed for receipt of applications and that
candidates must fulfill all the eligibility conditions on the last
date of application. As regards age, it prescribes the limit of
17-40 years and provides for rejection of an application
where the candidate is underage or overage 'on the cut off
date', without specifying any such date.”
12. As regards contention of the petitioner that petitioner was
entitled to benefit of OPS under Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36812-2026 (O&M) 9 of 12
(Annexure P-6), the same is also liable to be rejected as the respondents
have categorically stated in the impugned order that petitioner has failed
to submit the requisite documents. Claim of the petitioner under OM
dated 8.5.2023 has been rejected by the respondents for the following
reasons as given in the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 (Annexure P-
14): -
“.... It was specified in the Advt. No. 1/2008 that the
candidates who had earlier applied against the said category
no. 2 will also be eligible against the re-advertised post and
such candidates will be exempted from the payment of the
application fee. However, such candidates will have to apply
afresh alongwith proof of depositing the application fee. The
said candidates were required to attach attested photocopy
of Treasury Challan or I.P.O. as the case may be, alongwith
the fresh application form and were to produce the original
Treasury Challan or I.P.O. (Counter foil) at the time of test
interview.
The petitioner participated in the recruitment process
pursuant to the fresh advertisement, and her appointment
was made on 27.02.2009 by the department on the basis of
the recommendations made by the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission on 22.12.2008, arising from that recruitment
process. It was submitted that the petitioner was
subsequently promoted as Accountant on 18.07.2018.
Thereafter. the Finance Department. Government of Haryana,
vide office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 provided a one-
time option for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme to
employees who were appointed against posts/vacancies
advertised before 28.10.2005, but who joined service on or
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36812-2026 (O&M) 10 of 12
after 01.01.2006 under the New Pension Scheme, subject to
fulfilment of the conditions stipulated therein. The petitioner
submitted a written request dated 12.07.2023 seeking the
benefit of Old Pension Scheme under the Finance Department
O.M. dated 08.05.2023. The department requested the
petitioner vide letters dated 23.08.2023 and 29.09.2023 to
furnish relevant supporting documents/challan forms so as to
establish her eligibility under the Finance Department O.M.
dated 08.05.2023, but the petitioner failed to furnish the
requisite supporting documents/challan despite being given
an opportunity to do so. Consequently, the department was
unable to verify and establish that the petitioner fulfilled the
conditions prescribed under the Finance Department O.M.
dated 08.05.2023. In view of the non-submission of the
requisite documents, the petitioner's request for grant of OPS
was rejected. The decision was communicated to her vide
letter dated 06.03.2024. However, in the same matter, the
Finance Department, Government of Haryana, vide its advice
dated 25.06.2024, clarified that the provisions of office
memorandum dated 08.05.2023 were not applicable to cases
involving re-advertisement of posts.
With regard to contention of the petitioner qua
claiming parity with Sh. Jai Singh, Information Centre
Assistant (currently posted at Indri, District Karnal) who was
initially given the benefit of Old Pension Scheme under the
notification dated 08.05.2023, it was submitted that the said
decision of granting the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to him
was taken after considering and examining the relevant
record including Challan Form of Rs. 100/-counter signed by
Treasury Officer, Jagadhari. The said supporting documents
were submitted by him within the prescribed time but the
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36812-2026 (O&M) 11 of 12
petitioner could not provide any supporting
documents/challan form while exercising her option under
notification dated 08.05.2023. Thus, the petitioner failed to
substantiate her claim for being eligible to the Old Pension
Scheme under the notification dated 08.05.2023. However, it
was specifically submitted that the said decision dated
01.09.2023 qua Sh. Jai Singh was later-on withdrawn with
immediate effect vide department's order dated 23.11.2024
after receipt of advice from the Finance Department vide U.O.
No. 1/4/2021-2Pension (FD)/11187, dated 18.07.2024.
The department further submitted that there is also no
material on record to establish that the petitioner had any
appointment, engagement, selection, or vested right arising
out of the original 2003 advertisement which continued
uninterrupted until her appointment in 2009. Her case is thus
distinguishable from the factual circumstances considered in
Lal Chand. Therefore, the petitioner's appointment is
traceable to the 2008 re-advertisement and not to the
original Advertisement No. 8/2003, Lastly, it was submitted
that the Finance Department, Government of Haryana, which
is the competent authority in respect of the pension
policy/instructions in question, has specifically clarified vide
advice dated 18.07.2024 that the benefit contemplated under
office memorandum dated 08.05.2023 is not admissible in
cases involving re-advertisement of posts...........”
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or
dispute the above said facts and findings.
14. Consequentially, there is no merit in the present Writ Petition
and the same stands dismissed .
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36812-2026 (O&M) 12 of 12
15. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
05.11.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.05 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document