01Facts
The petitioner’s father, a government employee, died in harness on 17 May 2005.
¶ 2The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in May/June 2005, and the Department forwarded his application in July 2005.
¶ 2Approval was granted on 21 July 2006; he was appointed as a Mali and joined on 11 August 2006, after the New Pension Scheme (NPS) took effect on 1 January 2006.
¶ 5, 7The Department rejected his claim for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).
¶ 1–302Issues
i.Whether the petitioner’s post-1 January 2006 appointment and joining disentitled him from consideration for OPS coverage, despite his compassionate-appointment process having commenced before that date.
¶ 5–7ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to seek OPS coverage under the Office Memorandum dated 8 May 2023, in light of the cited precedents.
¶ 6–1003Law Applied
The Court applied the Finance Department, Government of Haryana, Office Memorandum dated 8 May 2023, which provides for an option for OPS coverage.
¶ 6–8As applied by the Court, a later formal appointment or joining date does not, by itself, defeat an employee’s claim for consideration under the Office Memorandum where the compassionate-appointment process was initiated before the relevant date and the delay was attributable to the Department.
¶ 6–8The Court also referred to Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-10970-2025 and connected cases, decided 24 August 2026, as a decision relied on by the petitioner.
¶ 204Reasoning
The petitioner’s father died and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment before the NPS took effect.
¶ 5, 7The Department processed the application and granted approval in July 2006; the later appointment letter and joining were consequential steps delayed by administrative and procedural matters, rather than by the petitioner.
¶ 5, 7Applying Om Prakash and Satpal Singh, the Court held that the joining date alone could not bar consideration under the 8 May 2023 Office Memorandum.
¶ 8It found no distinguishing circumstance in the State’s submissions warranting a different result.
¶ 905Holding
The Court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim and disposed of the petition in terms of Om Prakash and Satpal Singh.
¶ 10The petitioner was directed to exercise the requisite OPS option within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order; the respondents must then consider and process his claim and extend admissible consequential benefits within a further six weeks, in accordance with law.
¶ 10Amounts already contributed or accumulated under the NPS are to be adjusted under the applicable rules and instructions.
¶ 11Original Court PDF
Rajesh KumarvsState Of Haryana And Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
