Rohtash Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

1
CWP-32463-2026


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
119
CWP-32463-2026
Date of Decision:05.11.2026

Rohtash Singh .....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and Others ….Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present: Ms. Varuna Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana.

Ms. Anmolpreet Kaur and Mr. Harneet Oberoi, Advocate for
respondent No.3.


HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J.
1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ, order
or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus , directing the
respondents to extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the
petitioner in terms of Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure
P-6), he being an applicant for the post of Maths Master against
Advertisement No. 01/2005 (Annexure P-1) and Advertisement No. 06/2006
(Annexure P-4), and to permit/accept his option for switching over from the
Defined Contributory Pension Scheme/Haryana New Pension Scheme,
2008, to the Old Pension Scheme and further for directing the respondents to
re-fix and release his pensionary/retiral benefits under the Old Pension




PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

2
CWP-32463-2026


Scheme with effect from 31.03.2021, along with all consequential benefits,
arrears and reasonable interest.
2. On 01.10.2026, following order was passed:-
“ Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia,
contends that the petitioner applied for the post of Math Master
pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2005 dated 01.07.2005
(Annexure P-1) under the Ex-Serviceman category. The said
recruitment was subsequently withdrawn vide public notice
dated 23.06.2006 and the posts were re-advertised vide
Advertisement No.6/2006 dated 20.07.2006 (Annexure P-4),
comprising 24 categories of teaching posts.
It is further contended that Note 3 appended to
Advertisement No.6/2006 expressly protected the candidates
who had applied pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2005, by
providing that their eligibility, including academic
qualifications and age, was to be reckoned as on 01.07.2005.
The petitioner participated in the re-advertised selection
process and was ultimately selected and appointed vide order
dated 03.11.2008 (Annexure P-5). He joined service on
11.11.2008 and retired on 31.03.2021.
Learned counsel submits that, in view of the
aforesaid facts, the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered
by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-20263-2024
and connected matters, Om Prakash v. State of Haryana and
others , decided on 09.07.2026 (Annexure P-12), as well as by
the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-6),
whereby employees recruited against posts/vacancies
advertised/notified on or before 28.10.2005, though appointed
thereafter, are to be considered for coverage under the
Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, in place of the
New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme.




PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

3
CWP-32463-2026


It is further contended that the petitioner had no
knowledge of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, as he had
already retired by the time the said Office Memorandum dated
08.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) was issued. Consequently, the
petitioner could not effectively exercise his option thereunder.
Faced with the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel for respondent No.3 seeks a short accommodation to
obtain complete instructions in the matter.
List on 05.11.2026.”

3. Learned State counsel is not in a position to controvert the fact
that the petitioner had applied pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2005 dated
01.07.2005 (Annexure P-1), and that the posts advertised therein were
subsequently carried forward and re-advertised vide Advertisement
No.6/2006 dated 20.07.2006 (Annexure P-4). The subsequent advertisement,
vide Note 3 (page No.30 of the paper-book), expressly protected the
eligibility of candidates who had applied pursuant to the earlier
advertisement, by providing that their eligibility, including academic
qualifications and age, would be reckoned as on 01.07.2005.
4. The issue involved in the present petition is no longer res
integra . This Court, in Om Parkash (supra) and connected matters, decided
on 09.07.2026, while dealing with the cases falling under Category No.2,
has categorically held that where the recruitment process commenced
pursuant to an advertisement issued prior to 28.10.2005 and the subsequent
advertisement was merely a continuation of the earlier recruitment process,
the employees concerned would be entitled to the benefit of the Office
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023. The facts of the present case are squarely




PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

4
CWP-32463-2026


covered by the aforesaid judgment, particularly in view of Note 3 appended
to Advertisement No.6/2006, which preserved the eligibility of candidates
who had applied pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2005.
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the
judgment rendered by this Court in Om Parkash (supra) . The petitioner is
held entitled to the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023
(Annexure P-6) and is permitted to exercise his option for switching over to
the Old Pension Scheme within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6. Upon receipt of the option exercised by the petitioner, the
respondents shall process his claim and re-fix/release his consequential
pensionary/retiral benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, along with
arrears, within a further period of six weeks, in accordance with the
directions issued by this Court in Om Parkash (supra) .
7. It is made clear that any amount already contributed or paid
under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) shall be adjusted in accordance with
law.
8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.

05.11.2026 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
parul verma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No




PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment