Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-36657-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
128
CWP-36657-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.11.2026
Rajesh Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Paramvir Singh Doon, Advocate
with Ms. Kavita Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana
and Mr. Aakash Singla, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 30.09.2026
(Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the claim of the
petitioner to be covered under the Old Pension Scheme was rejected.
The petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to consider and release all pensionary benefits to him under
the Old Pension Scheme as he had applied for appointment on
compassionate grounds in May/June 2005 (Annexure P-2), well before
01.01.2006. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to
credit all the money deposited by the petitioner and the respondents
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37

CWP-36657-2026 2
under the New Pension Scheme to an account under the Old Pension
Scheme.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has , inter alia, contended
that the petitioner's father, who was serving as a Drawing Teacher in the
School Education Department, Haryana, unfortunately died in harness
on 17.05.2005. Following his demise, the petitioner applied for
appointment on compassionate grounds under the Haryana
Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government
Employees Rules, 2003 (Annexure P-1). His application was forwarded
by the District Education Officer, Bhiwani, to the Director, Secondary
Education, Haryana, on 12.07.2005 (Annexure P-3). However, due to
administrative delays and procedural objections raised by the
department, the petitioner's appointment was finally approved on
21.07.2006 (Annexure P-5), and he was appointed as a Class-IV
employee (Mali) vide order dated 11.08.2006 (Annexure P-6). It is
contended that since the petitioner had applied for appointment well
before the cut-off date of 01.01.2006, he is entitled to the benefits of the
Old Pension Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the State of Haryana through the Finance Department
issued an Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-8)
providing a one-time option for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme
and the petitioner's claim deserves consideration in light of the said
memorandum. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37

CWP-36657-2026 3
Om Prakash v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-20263-2024 and
connected cases, decided on 09.07.2026 , as well as the judgment
rendered in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-
10970-2025 and connected cases, decided on 24.08.2026 . He has also
relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Satpal Singh v.
State of Haryana and others, CWP-21388-2021 , decided on
27.10.2026 , wherein it was held that the subsequent date of joining, by
itself, cannot dis-entitle an employee from claiming the benefit of the
Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023, particularly when the process of
compassionate appointment had already culminated in the grant of
approval before the issuance of the formal appointment letter.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that the
petitioner joined the service as a Mali on 11.08.2006, i.e., after the New
Pension Scheme came into effect from 01.01.2006. It is contended that
the applicability of the pension scheme is required to be determined
with reference to the petitioner's actual date of joining service. Since he
entered into service after the implementation of the New Pension
Scheme, he cannot claim coverage under the Old Pension Scheme as a
matter of right. It is further submitted that the petitioner never
challenged his appointment order dated 21.07.2006 or his coverage
under the New Pension Scheme and he has approached this Court after a
substantial delay. Learned State counsel has further argued that the
Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 is applicable only to those
employees who were recruited against the posts or vacancies advertised
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37

CWP-36657-2026 4
or notified for recruitment on or before 28.10.2005, whereas the
petitioner was not recruited against a vacancy advertised on or before
28.10.2005 but was appointed under the ex gratia scheme.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case with their able assistance.
5. The controversy involved in the present case cannot be
determined merely by reference to the date on which the petitioner
formally joined service, without taking into consideration the
circumstances in which his appointment came to be made. The
petitioner's father died in harness on 17.05.2005 and the petitioner had
initiated his claim for compassionate appointment by submitting an
application in May/June, 2005. The respondent/Department itself
processed the claim, raised certain objections and ultimately granted
approval for his appointment on 21.07.2006. Therefore, the subsequent
issuance of the appointment letter and the petitioner's joining in August,
2006 were consequential steps in a process that had already been
initiated and processed by the respondent/Department. The delay in the
formal appointment of the petitioner is not attributable to him but is a
result of administrative delays and procedural formalities.
6. Further, the issue involved in the present petition is
squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Om
Parkash (supra) . In Paragraph No.35 of the said judgment, this Court
considered the case of an employee who had joined service as a Peon
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37

CWP-36657-2026 5
against an ex gratia post after the death of his father in harness and
observed as follows:
"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 prior to the
relevant date. 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 relevant 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 earlier 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."
7. The principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment is
applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner's father died in
harness on 17.05.2005 and the respondent/Department granted approval
for the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds vide order
dated 21.07.2006. The application for compassionate appointment was
made in May/June 2005, well before the implementation of the New
Pension Scheme. The respondents have primarily denied the benefit of
the Old Pension Scheme on the ground that the petitioner actually
joined service on 11.08.2006, after implementation of the New Pension
Scheme. However, in view of the principle laid down in Paragraph
No.35 of Om Parkash (supra) , the subsequent date of joining, by itself,
cannot disentitle the petitioner from claiming the benefit of the Office
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37

CWP-36657-2026 6
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023, particularly when the process of
compassionate appointment had already been initiated and was pending
consideration before the issuance of the formal appointment letter.
Denying the petitioner the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme solely on
the ground that formal appointment was made after 01.01.2006 would
defeat the very object of the Office Memorandum and would be unjust
and inequitable.
8. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on
the judgment passed by this Court in Satpal Singh (supra) is also well-
founded. In the said case, this Court, while dealing with a similar
situation where the petitioner's father had died in harness on 06.12.2004
and the approval for appointment was granted on 15.12.2005 but the
petitioner actually joined service on 25.01.2006, held that the
subsequent date of joining, by itself, cannot dis-entitle the petitioner
from claiming the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023,
particularly when the process of compassionate appointment had
already culminated in the grant of approval before the issuance of the
formal appointment letter.
9. Learned State counsel has not been able to controvert the
applicability of the aforesaid judgments to the facts of the present case
or point out any distinguishing circumstance warranting a different
view. Consequently, the petitioner is held entitled to consideration for
coverage under the Old Pension Scheme in terms of the Office
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37

CWP-36657-2026 7
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 and the law laid down in Om Parkash
(supra) and Satpal Singh (supra) .
10. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed
of in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Om Parkash
(supra) and Satpal Singh (supra) and the impugned order dated
30.09.2026 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No.2 is set-aside.
The petitioner is directed to exercise the requisite option for coverage
under the Old Pension Scheme in terms of the Office Memorandum
dated 08.05.2023 issued by the Finance Department, Government of
Haryana, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of such option, the respondents
shall consider and process the petitioner's claim and extend the
consequential benefits admissible to him under the Old Pension Scheme
within a further period of six weeks, in accordance with law.
11. It is clarified that any amount already contributed or
accumulated in the petitioner's account under the New Pension Scheme
shall be adjusted in accordance with the applicable rules and
instructions.
12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
05.11.2026
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37