Six Haryana Stenotypists Appointed In 2009–10 Lose Old Pension Bid As P&H HC Says 2008 Recruitment Did Not Relate Back To 2003 Ad

In brief

The question

1. Whether participation in the 2003 recruitment, followed by a fresh application under Advertisement No. 1/2008, entitled the petitioners to have their appointments treated as arising from the earlier recruitment for OPS purposes.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the petitioners, found no merit in the writ petition, and dismissed it.

It also directed

Any pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioners were appointed as stenotypists between 2009 and 2010 after participating in a recruitment process under Advertisement No. 1/2008.

pp. 2–6, 10–11

They had earlier applied under Advertisement No. 8/2003, but that recruitment did not proceed and the posts were subsequently re-advertised.

pp. 2–6, 10–11

The petitioners sought coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) pursuant to the Haryana Government’s Office Memorandum dated 8 May 2023, arguing that their recruitment originated before the relevant cut-off date.

pp. 6, 9–10, 12–13

They challenged the rejection under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether participation in the 2003 recruitment, followed by a fresh application under Advertisement No. 1/2008, entitled the petitioners to have their appointments treated as arising from the earlier recruitment for OPS purposes.

pp. 7–8, 10–11

ii.2. Whether the petitioners established eligibility for OPS under the Office Memorandum dated 8 May 2023, despite their appointments occurring after 1 January 2006 and the respondents’ finding that the requisite pre-cut-off application documents were not proved.

pp. 9, 12–13

03Law Applied

The Court applied the governing OPS cut-off, stating that OPS was available only to employees appointed on or before 1 January 2006.

p. 9

It considered the Haryana Government’s Office Memorandum dated 8 May 2023, which provided a route for eligible employees to opt for OPS.

p. 6, 12

It also construed Note III to Advertisement No. 1/2008: earlier applicants could apply for re-advertised posts and were exempt from paying the application fee, but were required to apply afresh.

pp. 10–11

The Court relied on the Coordinate Bench decision in Seema Rani v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-32895-2026, decided 5 October 2026, which held that Note III did not reckon eligibility from the earlier advertisement date.

pp. 11–12

04Reasoning

The petitioners’ appointments took place between 2009 and 2010, after the stated OPS cut-off.

p. 9

The Court held that Note III did not make the 2008 recruitment a continuation of the 2003 process: it merely allowed earlier applicants to compete for the re-advertised posts, while expressly requiring a fresh application.

p. 10

Consistent with Seema Rani, that provision did not preserve an earlier eligibility date.

pp. 11–12

Further, the petitioners did not controvert the respondents’ finding that they had failed to establish a valid pre-cut-off application through the required supporting documents.

pp. 12–13

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the rejection of their OPS claims.

pp. 12–13