Smt. Swati Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
CWP-36591-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
125+132+134
Date of decision: 05.11.2026
1. CWP-36591-2026 (O&M)
Swati Devi
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
2. CWP-36782-2026 (O&M)
Sandeep Dixit and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
3. CWP-36795-2026 (O&M)
Rajneesh and others
....Petitioners
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 in CWP-36591-2026.
Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-36782-2026.
Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-36795-2026.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana
and Mr. Aakash Singla, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37
CWP-36591-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 2
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.
1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ
petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common
judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP-
36591-2026.
2. The civil writ petition (CWP-36591-2026) has been filed
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance
of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated
27.08.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the
claim of the petitioner to be covered under the Old Pension Scheme was
rejected. The petitioner further seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to allow her to switch over from the Defined
Contributory Pension Scheme (New Pension Scheme) to the Old
Pension Scheme in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023
(Annexure P-5) and to grant all consequential pensionary benefits,
including the allotment of a General Provident Fund Account Number
and the transfer of contributions from her Permanent Retirement
Account Number to the GPF account, in a time-bound manner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, contended
that the petitioner applied for the post of Home Science Mistress
pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2005 dated 01.07.2005 (Annexure P-1).
The said recruitment was subsequently withdrawn and the posts were
re-advertised vide Advertisement No.6/2006 dated 20.07.2006
(Annexure P-2). It is further contended that Note-3 appended to
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37
CWP-36591-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 3
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 appointed vide order
dated 11/12.12.2008 (Annexure P-3). She joined service on 17.12.2008
and is stated to be retiring on 31.08.2032.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that the petitioner's claim is squarely covered by the judgment rendered
by this Court in CWP-20263-2024 and connected matters, Om Parkash
v. State of Haryana and others , decided on 09.07.2026 , as well as by
the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-5), whereby the
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. It is further
contended that the respondent/Department, while passing the impugned
order dated 27.08.2026 (Annexure P-8), has rejected the petitioner's
claim solely on the ground that she was appointed after 01.01.2006 and
against the vacancies re-advertised in the year 2006, while completely
ignoring the fact that the recruitment process had commenced with the
advertisement issued on 01.07.2005, which was prior to the cut-off date
of 28.10.2005.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37
CWP-36591-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 4
5. Per contra , learned State counsel, while referring to the
impugned order dated 27.08.2026 (Annexure P-8), has submitted that
the petitioner was appointed on 17.12.2008, i.e., after 01.01.2006, and
was recruited through Advertisement No.6/2006 dated 20.07.2006. It is
further submitted that the Finance Department, Haryana, vide its
comments dated 26.04.2024, has recommended that the Office
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 is not meant for re-advertisement of
posts. Learned State counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of
this Court in CWP-36834-2025 , titled as Sandeep Kumar v. State of
Haryana and others , decided on 22.12.2025 , and contended that
employees appointed after 01.01.2006 have no vested or fundamental
right to claim coverage under the Old Pension Scheme. However, he 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 the posts advertised therein were subsequently carried forward and
re-advertised vide Advertisement No.6/2006 dated 20.07.2006
(Annexure P-2). He further does not dispute that Note-3 appended to the
subsequent advertisement (Annexure P-2) expressly preserved the
eligibility of candidates who had applied pursuant to the earlier
advertisement, by providing that their eligibility would be reckoned as
on 01.07.2005.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case with their able assistance.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37
CWP-36591-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 5
7. 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
relevant observations made by this Court in Om Parkash (supra) are
reproduced hereinbelow:
"31. A plain reading of the aforesaid Note-3 leaves
little room for doubt that the subsequent recruitment
process was not conceived as an entirely independent or de
novo exercise, but was, in substance, a continuation of the
recruitment process originally initiated through the
advertisement dated 01.07.2005. By expressly preserving
the eligibility of candidates who had applied pursuant to
the earlier advertisement and exempting them from the
payment of fresh application fee, the respondents
themselves created a legal fiction that treated the
recruitment process as having its genesis in the original
advertisement issued prior to the cut off date of
28.10.2005.
32. The underlying object of the Office Memorandum
dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-12) is to extend the benefit
of the Old Pension Scheme to those employees whose
recruitment process had commenced prior to the cut off
date of 28.10.2005, but whose appointment was made on or
after 01.01.2006 owing to administrative delays or other
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37
CWP-36591-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 6
circumstances beyond their control. The emphasis under
Office Memorandum is on the date on which the post or
vacancy was advertised/notified, and not merely on the
date of appointment.
33. In the present case, it is an admitted position that
the posts in question were initially advertised on
01.07.2005. As already held herein-above, the subsequent
recruitment was not an independent or de novo exercise but
a continuation of the earlier recruitment process.
Consequently, the petitioners satisfy the essential condition
prescribed under clause 5(i) of the Office Memorandum
dated 08.05.2023 and, therefore, fall squarely within its
beneficial ambit. The respondents cannot be permitted to
defeat the very purpose of the Office Memorandum by
adopting a hyper-technical or pedantic interpretation,
particularly when the delay in completion of the
recruitment process was not attributable to the petitioners.
Any such construction would frustrate the beneficial object
sought to be achieved by the policy and would result in
manifest injustice."
8. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the
aforesaid judgment rendered in Om Parkash (supra) . The petitioner had
applied pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2005 dated 01.07.2005, which
was prior to the cut-off date of 28.10.2005. The subsequent
advertisement i.e. Advertisement No.6/2006 dated 20.07.2006, was
merely a continuation of the earlier recruitment process, as is evident
from Note-3 appended thereto, which expressly preserved the eligibility
of the candidates who had applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement.
The impugned order dated 27.08.2026 (Annexure P-8) has been passed
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37
CWP-36591-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 7
on the basis of a hyper-technical interpretation of the Office
Memorandum dated 08.05.2023, by placing reliance solely on the date
of appointment and the date of the subsequent advertisement, while
ignoring the fact that the recruitment process had its genesis in an
advertisement issued prior to the cut-off date. The reliance placed by the
State counsel on Sandeep Kumar (supra) is misplaced as the said
judgment dealt with a challenge to the cut-off date prescribed in the
Office Memorandum, which is not the issue in the present case. The
present case is squarely covered by the subsequent judgment rendered
by this Court in Om Parkash (supra) , which specifically addresses the
situation where posts advertised prior to the cut-off date are
subsequently re-advertised.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of
the judgment rendered by this Court in Om Parkash (supra) . The
impugned order dated 27.08.2026 (Annexure P-8) is set-aside. The
petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of the Office Memorandum
dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-5) and is permitted to exercise her 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.
10. Upon receipt of the option exercised by the petitioner, the
respondents shall process her claim and re-fix/release her 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) .
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:37
CWP-36591-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 8
11. It is made clear that any amount already contributed or paid
under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) shall be adjusted in accordance
with law.
12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected cases.
(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