2003 Application Didn’t Make Haryana Steno-Typist’s 2009 Re-Advertisement Appointment Eligible For Old Pension: P&H HC Rejects Claim

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s 2009 appointment pursuant to the 2008 re-advertisement could be treated as arising from the original 2003 advertisement, making her eligible for OPS under the OM dated 08.05.2023.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, upheld the rejection of her OPS claim, and dismissed the writ petition.

It also directed

Any pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner applied in 2003 for a Steno-typist post advertised by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC).

p. 2

After the posts were re-advertised in 2008, she applied afresh, was selected, and was appointed on 27.02.2009.

p. 4, 9

In 2023, she sought coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) pursuant to the Haryana Government’s Office Memorandum (OM) dated 08.05.2023, which provided an option for certain employees appointed after 01.01.2006 against posts or vacancies advertised before 28.10.2005.

pp. 3, 8–9

The department rejected her claim, including on the basis that she had not supplied the requested supporting documents and that her appointment arose from the 2008 re-advertisement.

pp. 9–11

After an earlier writ petition resulted in a direction to decide her claim, she challenged the rejection in this petition.

p. 3, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s 2009 appointment pursuant to the 2008 re-advertisement could be treated as arising from the original 2003 advertisement, making her eligible for OPS under the OM dated 08.05.2023.

pp. 4, 6–8

ii.2. Whether the petitioner established eligibility for OPS under the OM, including by furnishing the supporting documents requested by the department.

pp. 5–6, 8–11

03Law Applied

The OM dated 08.05.2023 provided for a one-time option for OPS to eligible employees appointed on or after 01.01.2006 against posts or vacancies advertised before 28.10.2005, subject to its prescribed conditions.

pp. 3, 8–9

Note III to Advertisement No. 1/2008 permitted candidates who had applied earlier to apply for re-advertised posts without paying the application fee again, but expressly required them to apply afresh; it did not provide that a later appointment would relate back to the original advertisement.

pp. 6–8

The Court also relied on the Coordinate Bench decision in Seema Rani v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-32895-2026, decided 05.10.2026, which interpreted the same Note III as requiring a fresh application without reckoning eligibility from the earlier advertisement.

p. 7

04Reasoning

The Court held that the petitioner’s appointment date was 27.02.2009 and that Note III did not backdate her appointment to the 2003 advertisement: it merely allowed earlier applicants to compete for the re-advertised posts, subject to applying afresh.

pp. 6–8

The petitioner’s appointment followed the 2008 recruitment process, and the Court found no basis to treat it as arising from the original advertisement.

pp. 9–11

Further, the department had requested supporting documents to verify her OPS claim, but the petitioner had not furnished the requisite material; she did not controvert the relevant facts and findings.

pp. 9–11

The Court therefore found no merit in her challenge.

p. 11