Post-2006 appointment does not defeat Old Pension Scheme eligibility where qualifying service or recruitment commenced before the prescribed cutoff.

The lead petition and connected writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerned entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme (“OPS”) under the Haryana New Pension Scheme, 2008 and Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023.

With the parties’ consent, the Court classified the cases into four categories: (i) employees appointed between 01.01.2006 and 18.08.2008 seeking substitution of 18.08.2008 for 28.10.2005 as the cut-off date; (ii) employees initially engaged part-time, ad hoc, temporary or contractually before 01.01.2006 and regularized thereafter; (iii) candidates who applied pursuant to pre-28.10.2005 advertisements but were appointed after 01.01.2006; and (iv) compassionate or ex-gratia appointees where the death in harness and initiation of the claim occurred before 28.10.2005.

The State conceded that Categories II to IV were substantially covered by existing precedents but relied on Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, affirmed in appeal, to oppose the challenge to the 28.10.2005 cut-off date in Category I.

Applications seeking amendment of the head note and prayer clauses in three petitions were withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn.

Whether the cut-off date of 28.10.2005 prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 for determining eligibility for OPS was arbitrary or liable to be substituted by 18.08.2008?

Whether continuous pre-regularization service rendered on a part-time, ad hoc, temporary or contractual basis before 01.01.2006 could be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, notwithstanding regularization after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme?

Whether candidates appointed after 01.01.2006 pursuant to recruitment advertisements issued before 28.10.2005 were entitled to the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 and an option to switch to OPS?

Whether compassionate or ex-gratia appointees were entitled to OPS where the death in harness and initiation of the appointment claim occurred before 28.10.2005, although the formal appointment was made thereafter?

The Court applied the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 and the Haryana New Pension Scheme, 2008, including the State’s prescription of 28.10.2005 as the cut-off date and its one-time option for eligible employees appointed against posts or vacancies advertised before that date.

Relying on Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, affirmed in LPA-587-2026, the Court held that the State was not bound to adopt the Central Government’s cut-off date, that 28.10.2005 was not manifestly arbitrary, and that judicial review of policy choices involving financial implications was limited.

For pre-regularization service, the Court relied on State of Haryana v. Jai Bhagwan, Kesar Chand v. State of Haryana, Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab, Rajesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, Bimla Devi v. PSPCL, Jagdish v. PSPCL, and particularly Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, applying the principle that continuous long-term service cannot be disregarded merely because it was initially described as part-time, ad hoc or contractual and may constitute qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

Under Om Prakash, a recruitment process initiated by a pre-cut-off advertisement remains a continuation of that process where a subsequent advertisement preserves the earlier applicants’ eligibility; similarly, a compassionate appointment claim initiated before the cut-off date is not defeated by delay in formal appointment attributable to the authorities.

For Category I, the Court treated the validity of 28.10.2005 as settled by the coordinate Bench decision in Sandeep Kumar, which had been affirmed by the Division Bench. Since the State was entitled to formulate its own pension policy and the cut-off date was neither manifestly arbitrary nor constitutionally infirm, the Court declined to substitute 18.08.2008.

For Category II, the petitioners’ continuous pre-regularization engagements were assessed substantively rather than by their formal labels. Applying the principle that a model employer cannot exploit workers through prolonged temporary or part-time engagements and then deny pensionary rights, the Court held that such service was qualifying service and that subsequent regularization after introduction of the New Pension Scheme could not by itself exclude the petitioners from OPS.

For Category III, because the recruitment process originated in advertisements issued before 28.10.2005 and the later appointments were treated as continuations of those processes, the petitioners fell within the Office Memorandum despite appointment after 01.01.2006.

For Category IV, the relevant events were the death in harness and initiation of the compassionate or ex-gratia claim, both occurring before the cut-off date; the later formal appointment was merely the culmination of an earlier process and could not prejudice the claimants.

Category II petitions were allowed: the respondents were directed to count pre-regularization part-time, ad hoc, temporary or contractual service as qualifying service and extend OPS with consequential pensionary and retiral benefits, including arrears, within six weeks of receiving the certified order.

Categories III and IV were also allowed: the petitioners were declared entitled to the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 and were directed to exercise the OPS option within six weeks; the respondents were then required to process the claims and release consequential benefits within a further six weeks.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.