Krishan Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 1 of 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
140 CWP-36992-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.11.2026
Krishan Kumar and others ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Suneel Ranga, 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 petitioners:-
(i) For issuance of a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-
15), insofar as it pertains to petitioner Nos. 5 and 6, whereby their claim
for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme has been rejected, being
arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Office Memorandum dated
08.05.2023 (Annexure P-13); AND
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and grant the benefit of
the Old Pension Scheme to all the petitioners under the Punjab Civil
Services Rules, Volume-II/Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, as
DIVYANSHI
applicable, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 2 of 14
(Annexure P-13), by treating their recruitment as having originated from
Advertisement No. 8/2003 dated 19.11.2003 (Annexure P-1), which was
continued through Advertisement No. 1/2008 dated 07.02.2008
(Annexure P-6), and by treating the petitioners as covered under the
applicable pensionary regime on the basis of the said pre-cut-off-date i.e.
28.10.2005 recruitment;
(iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the
representations submitted by petitioners for coverage under the Old
Pension Scheme in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated
08.05.2023 and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Om Prakash v.
State of Haryana and others (CWP-20263-2024, decided on 09.07.2026)
(P-16) and Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (CWP-10970-
2025, decided on 24.08.2026) (P-17), and to extend the consequential
benefits to them.
2. Brief sequence of events in chronological order as stated by
ld. Counsel for the petitioners, are as under: -
19.11.2003: Vide Advertisement No.8/2003, the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commission’) had invited
applications for multiple categories for various departments. The
petitioners submitted applications for the advertised posts of Steno-typist
(English), Junior Scale Stenographer, Sr. Scale Stenographer etc. along with
requisite fee to participate in the recruitment process for the Advt. no.
8/2003 dated 19.11.2023 (Annexure P-1). Copy of the application forms
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 3 of 14
and fee challans of petitioners no. 1, 3 and 5 to the abovesaid
advertisements issued from 2003 to 2005 for post of Steno-typist & Junior
Scale Stenographer etc. are on record as Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4
respectively.
09.11.2005: It is admitted position on record that the recruitment process
pursuant to Advertisement No.8/2003 and other advertisements which
were issued in 2004 & 2005 were either not initiated at all or were not
concluded. The Petitioners were participants under the recruitment
process initiated under Advertisement No. 8/2003. However, before the
recruitment could attain finality, the respondents took some
administrative decisions due to pending litigation, which delayed the
selection process.
Consequentially, the Commission issued a public notice dated
09.11.2005 (Annexure P-5), informing candidates that a large number of
requisitions received from different departments had been withdrawn;
and consequently several advertisements issued during the years 2003
and 2004 stood withdrawn. Significantly, the said notice specifically
included the categories of posts to which the present petitioners belong,
namely Clerks, Hindi Steno Typists, and allied Stenographic posts
advertised under Advertisement No. 8 of 2003.
07.02.2008: Thereafter, on 07.02.2008, Advt. No.1/2008 was issued
(Annexure P-6). The said Advertisement specifically provided that the
candidates, who had earlier applied under Advertisement No.8 of 2003
were not required to deposit the application fee afresh and were only
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 4 of 14
required to enclose proof of the treasury challan deposited at the time of
the earlier advertisement.
In terms of the aforesaid stipulation, petitioners again applied
pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2008 and participated in the selection
process. It is the contention of the petitioners that the subsequent
recruitment was thus a continuation of the original recruitment vide
Advertisement No.8/2003 and not an independent de novo recruitment.
Upon culmination of the recruitment process, the Haryana
Staff Selection Commission issued recommendations in favour of the
petitioners. They were selected against Category No.3 of Advertisement
No.1/2008 dated 07.02.2008 as Steno-typist (English).
Following the selection process, Appointment Letters/Joining
Letters were issued to the petitioners, which are on record as Annexures
P-7, P-7/1, P-7/2 & P-7/3 respectively.
The petitioners were thereafter promoted as Junior Scale
Stenographer, Senior Scale Stenographer and then Personal Assistant and
continue to serve under the State Government. The details of all the
petitioners are mentioned below in the table:-
Sr.
No.
Petitioner’s
Name
Appointed/Joined and
designation
Promotions
1 Krishan Kumar On 25.10.2010 as Steno-
typist
Junior Scale
Stenographer-
30.06.2019
Senior Scale
Stenographer-
30.06.2021
DIVYANSHI Personal
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 5 of 14
Assistant-
31.12.2003
2 Suman On 29.10.2010 as Steno-
typist
Junior Scale
Stenographer-
06.05.2015
Senior Scale
Stenographer-
20.09.2018
Personal
Assistant-
07.12.2022
3 Rajesh Kumar On 14.01.2010 as Steno-
typist
Junior Scale
Stenographer-
06.05.2015
Senior Scale
Stenographer-
20.09.2018
Personal
Assistant-
14.08.2020
4 Suman Kumari On 02.03.2009 as Steno-
typist
Assistant-
04.07.2024
Presently
serving as
Reader
5 Mahender
Kumar
On 15.01.2010 as Steno-
typist
Junior Scale
Stenographer-
05.04.2015
Senior Scale
Stenographer-
05.01.2022
Personal
Assistant-
16.12.2025
6 Meenu Sood On 29.01.2010 As Steno-
typist
Junior Scale
Stenographer-
24.04.2015
Section
Officer-
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 6 of 14
19.06.2020
18.08.2008: On 18.08.2008, New Pension Scheme/Defined Contributory
Pension Scheme was notified. Copy of New Pension Scheme Notification
dated 18.08.2008 and various guidelines dated 22.08.2008, 10.10.2008,
04.12.2008 and 13.01.2009 are on record as Annexures P-8 to P-12
respectively.
08.05.2023: Respondent-Govt. Of Haryana had issued Office
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-13) permitting eligible
employees appointed against the vacancies to opt for Old Pension Scheme
(‘OPS’).
18.05.2023: Petitioners No. 1 to 3 submitted a detailed Representation
dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure P-14) explaining facts of their case.
15.09.2023: Vide letter dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure P-14/A), Deputy
Commission, Hisar forwarded Representation submitted by petitioner
No.4.
13.09.2024: Vide impugned order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-15),
claim of the petitioners have been rejected.
11.10.2026: Hence, present Writ Petition has been filed on 11.10.2026.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners 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
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 7 of 14
01.01.2006 and the petitioners should have been appointed against the
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 190 posts of
Steno Typist (English) and 272 posts of Steno-Typist (Both Hindi & English),
against which the petitioners were appointed, were advertised vide
advertisement no.8/2003 (category no.3 and category no.4) in the year
2003 by the HSSC, Panchkula against which the application fee of Rs.100
was deposited vide challan dated nil in the office of Assistant Treasury
Officer Uklana, Haryana and application fee of Rs.200/-, was deposited
vide challan dated 01.12.2003. Hence, since the posts were notified prior
to the coming of the new pension scheme in Haryana (i.e. 28.10.2005)
therefore the petitioners are 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 petitioners as vide the
Advertisement No.1/2008 dated 07.02.2008 (Annexure P-6), previous 202
posts of Steno-typist (English) (Category No.3) and 22 posts of Steno-typist
(English) had been re-advertised. Moreover, as per Note III of the said
Advertisement (Annexure P-6), 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
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 8 of 14
the payment of application fee.” It is contended that therefore,
petitioners , who had previously applied in Advt. No.8/2003, would also be
eligible against the re-advertised post. It is further contended that
therefore, appointment of the petitioners would relate back to the
previous Advt. No.8/2003. As such, case of the petitioners for OPS has
been wrongly rejected.
5. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be
allowed; and following prayers be accepted: -
“(i) For issuance of a writ, order or direction especially in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated
13.09.2024 (Annexure P-15), insofar as it pertains to
petitioner Nos. 5 and 6, whereby their claim for coverage
under the Old Pension Scheme has been rejected, being
arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Office Memorandum
dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-13); AND
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and
grant the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to all the
petitioners under the Punjab Civil Services Rules,
Volume-II/Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, as
applicable, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated
08.05.2023 (Annexure P-13), by treating their recruitment as
having originated from Advertisement No. 8/2003 dated
19.11.2003 (Annexure P-1), which was continued through
Advertisement No. 1/2008 dated 07.02.2008 (Annexure P-6),
and by treating the petitioners as covered under the
applicable pensionary regime on the basis of the said pre-cut-
off-date i.e. 28.10.2005 recruitment;
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 9 of 14
(iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and
decide the applications/representations submitted by
petitioners for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme in
accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023
and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Om Prakash v.
State of Haryana and others (CWP-20263-2024, decided on
09.07.2026) (P-16) and Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
and others (CWP-10970-2025, decided on 24.08.2026) (P-17),
and to extend the consequential benefits to them;
(iv) Direct the respondents to extend all consequential service
and pensionary benefits to the petitioners, including the
benefit of coverage under the Old Pension Scheme, with all
consequential benefits admissible under the applicable rules
and policy, and to pass the necessary orders within a time-
bound period as may be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.”
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 13.09.2026
(Annexure P-15) is a speaking order; wherein cogent reasons have been
cited for rejecting the case of the petitioners. Admittedly, OPS is only
applicable to persons who had been appointed prior to 01.01.2006;
whereas date of appointment of the petitioners are between 02.03.2009
to 25.10.2010. Moreover, even though petitioners had exercised their
one-time option under the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023
(Annexure P-13), petitioners had been duly asked to provide supporting
documents, which the petitioners had failed to furnish. As such, there is
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 10 of 14
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 petitioners.
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 dates of the appointment of the petitioners
range between 02.03.2009 to 25.10.2010.
9. Further, Contention of the petitioners that in terms of Note III
of the Advertisement No.1/2008 dated 07.02.2008 (Annexure P-6),
appointment of the petitioners 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
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
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 11 of 14
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 petitioners that their
appointments will relate back to the previous advertisement of 2003, is
far-fetched.
11. Furthermore, 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
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
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 12 of 14
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 petitioners that petitioners were
entitled to benefit of OPS under Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023
(Annexure P-13), the same is also liable to be rejected as the respondents
have categorically stated in the impugned order that petitioners have
failed to submit the requisite documents. Claim of the petitioners under
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 13 of 14
Office Memorandum dated 8.5.2023 has been rejected by the
respondents for the following reasons as given in the impugned order
dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-15): -
“However, it is clearly mentioned in the Note III of the
advt. No. 1/2008 dated 1.2008 dated 07.02.2008 that the
post indicated at category No.1 was advertised earlier by the
Commission vide Advt. No. 11/2004 dated 2.12.2004 and
category No. 2 to 7 were earlier advertised vide advt. 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 alongwith proof of depositing the
application fee. They are required to attach the attested
photocopy of Treasury Challan or IPO as the case may be
alongwith the fresh application form and will produce the
original Treasury Challan or IPO(Counter foil) at the time of
test/interview.
Since there is no proof of deposit of application form
fee prior to 1.1.2006 which to relates application submitted
prior to 1.1.2006 which corroborates the facts that you
applied prior to the advertisement of 2008 i.e. advt. of 2003
& 2005 submitted by you and you submitted fresh
applications & fee challan does not pertain to the challan
form earlier submitted by you, but your application form
submitted on the basis of which your appointment made,
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36992-2026 (O&M) 14 of 14
contains the challan form fee after 1.1.2006. So your cases
are not covered under the FD's memo dated 8.5.2023 hence
the same are rejected accordingly as there is no proof of
validly applied under the advt. of 2003 & 2005.”
( Emphasis added)
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 .
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
2026.11.13 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document