RA-CW-167 along with 201 Present: common petitions. seeking a for promotion, Old Pension regularisation 2. Polytechnics Government regularise on 31.01.1996, The Policy Later, the 167-2024 in CWP-19046-2019 with connected review applications RA-CW-167-2024 in CWP- RA-CW-184-2024 in CWP- RA-CW-177-2024 in CWP- RA-CW-366-2024 in CWP- VIVEK VOHRA AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate, Mr. Reshabh Bajaj, Advocate, Ms. Gauri C. Kaushal, Advocate, Mr. Rajan Singh Dadwal, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Sr. DAG, These applications have been judgment, dated 08.02.2024, passed The applicant/petitioners have writ of mandamus directing the promotion, benefit of Assured Career Pension Scheme (OPS), on the basis regularisation with effect from 31.01.1996. The facts of the case in brief Polytechnics on adhoc basis in 1993, Government of Haryana had earlier framed regularise adhoc/Class II employees on completion 31.01.1996, subject to fulfilment of other Policy was, however, withdrawn vide the Government reconsidered the 1 applications -19046-2019 with -182-2017, -11936-2017, -13705-2020 ORS AND ORS Advocate, with Advocate, Advocate, Advocate, DAG, Haryana. been filed seeking review of passed in the aforementioned writ have approached this Court inter alia respondents to consider their claim Career Progression (ACP), seniority and basis of their appointment by way 31.01.1996. brief are, the petitioners joined different and regular basis in 2007. The framed a policy, dated 07.03.1996, completion of two years service other conditions laid down therein. vide office order dated 08.12.1997. matter and vide notification dated the writ alia claim and way of different The 07.03.1996, to service as therein. 08.12.1997. dated MANINDER 2025.04.23 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CW-167 along with 16.06.2014, only to the services could regularised Based upon along with 2.1. seeking seniority stand was reviving Division Bench of 2014 titled along with State were quo regarding Therefore, circumstances, reviewed, 167-2024 in CWP-19046-2019 with connected review applications 16.06.2014, decided to revive the regularisation the extent that Group B employees could not be regularised due to withdrawal regularised with effect from the date of upon the aforesaid notification reviving with others, were regularised in service Having been so regularised, seniority and other service benefit was taken by the respondents that as the earlier policy dated 07.03.1996, Bench vide judgment dated 31.05.2018 titled Yogesh Tyagi and another with connected cases. And SLPs were pending adjudication before the regarding petitioners’ services had Therefore, the petitioners could not be given circumstances, the petitions were disposed reviewed, dated 08.02.2024 , by observing 7. The petitioners, who lecturers, were regularised in Polytechnic Societies, with Accordingly, they came in government that date and became entitled benefits. The only ground to by the respondents, is pendency Court wherein the government Yogesh Tyagi case (supra regularisation policy, dated 07.03.1996. under similar circumstances, 2 applications regularisation policy, dated 07.03.1996, employees working on adhoc service, whose withdrawal of the policy, would of eligibility in terms of the policy. reviving the Policy, the petitioners, service with effect from 31.01.1996. regularised, they submitted representations benefits, including that of the OPS. as the notification dated 16.06.2014, 07.03.1996, had been set aside by 31.05.2018 rendered in CWP No.17206 another v. State of Haryana and others filed against the judgment by the Supreme Court wherein status d been ordered to be maintained. given the benefits claimed. In these disposed of vide the judgment sought to observing as under: were earlier working as adhoc in service of the government owned with effect from 31.01.1996. government service with effect from entitled to claim all consequential to deny these benefits, as canvassed pendency of litigation before the Supreme government has challenged the judgment supra) setting aside revival of 07.03.1996. It is not disputed that circumstances, this Court in Prithi Nath case 07.03.1996, whose would be policy. petitioners, 31.01.1996. representations OPS. A 16.06.2014, by a No.17206 others, the status maintained. these to be adhoc owned 31.01.1996. from ential canvassed Supreme judgment in the that case MANINDER 2025.04.23 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CW-167 along with 3. that by way on the ground 167-2024 in CWP-19046-2019 with connected review applications (supra) granted all consequential senior scale, selection grade, final outcome of Yogesh Tyagi at that time before the Division judgment reads as under: … Be that as it regularised by the 31.01.1996 vide petitioner is entitled including arrears selection grade, result of the bunch Division Bench in 8. This Court, however, cannot the time directions were 08.02.2018, the validity 16.06.2014, which revived regularisation of the petitioners, the same was set aside by judgment dated 31.05.2018, 2014, against which State Supreme Court. Evidently, the upon which the petitioners are on date. This was not the situation decided, and the petitioners Therefore, at this stage the Nevertheless, fate of this policy outcome will determine Consequently, the petition respondents to decide the adjudication of the matter by SLPs against the judgment in Learned senior counsel for way of instant applications, review ground that due to inadvertence it 3 applications consequential benefits including arrears grade, fixation of pay, etc., subject Tyagi case (supra), which was pending Division Bench. The operative part of may, since the petitioner had been the department on its own w.e.f. vide order dated 15.01.2016, entitled to all consequential benefits arrears of senior scale, arrears fixation of pay etc., subject to final bunch of cases pending before in Yogesh Tyagi’s case (supra). … cannot lose sight of the fact that issued in Prithi Nath case of regularisation policy dated revived earlier policies leading petitioners, was under challenge. However, by the Division Bench later vide 31.05.2018, rendered in CWP No.17206 has gone in appeal before the policy dated 16.06.2014, based are claiming relief does not exist situation when Pirthi Nath case was petitioners cannot draw parallels to relief claimed cannot be granted. policy remains sub judice, and the petitioners’ claim as well. stands disposed of directing the petitioners’ claim after final by the Supreme Court in pending in Yogesh Tyagi case (supra). the applicant/petitioners contends review of the judgment has been sought could not be brought to the notice arrears of subject to pending the been w.e.f. the benefits of final the … that at on dated to However, vide of the based exist as was it. granted. the well. the final pending contends sought notice MANINDER 2025.04.23 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CW-167 along with of the Court the policy set aside judgment Accordingly, Court will further contends of pay fixation as also the claim at this retired and 4. Director, which is taken by learned policy as CWP No.22592 and others applicant/petitioners been, had case (supra 5. 6. 03.04.2025, regularised 07.03.1996, them have 167-2024 in CWP-19046-2019 with connected review applications Court that vide judgment rendered policy dated 07.03.1996 nor the notification by the Division Bench. And reliance rendered in Pirthi Nath case Accordingly, pendency of the SLPs against will not have any bearing on the contends that all the petitioners have fixation with effect from the date the benefit of ACP scales while this stage pertains to the benefit of and the rest are left with only a few Learned State counsel has Technical Education Department taken on record. She has not disputed learned senior counsel, however, it has well as the notification, are under No.22592 of 2015 titled Manish Gupta others, which is pending applicant/petitioners are essentially in the had this policy and notification been supra). Heard. As per the affidavit filed on 03.04.2025, it is not disputed that all the regularised in service with effect from 31.01.1996 996, which was revived vide notification have been given promotion as Senior 4 applications rendered in Yogesh Tyagi case ibid, neither notification dated 16.06.2014 had been reliance was wrongly placed on case to claim the benefits on parity. against that judgment in the Supreme the facts of the instant petitions. have already been given the benefit date of regularisation, i.e., 31.01.1996, while in service. Their only remaining of OPS, as one of them has already few years of service. filed an affidavit of Additional Department Haryana, dated 03.04.20 disputed the aforesaid facts mentioned has been contended that both, under challenge before this Court Gupta and others v. State of Haryana adjudication. Accordingly, the same position as they would have been under challenge in Yogesh Tyagi on behalf of the respondents, dated the applicant/petitioners have been 31.01.1996 under the policy dated notification dated 16.06.2014. Some Senior Lecturers, and have been granted neither been the parity. Supreme He benefit 31.01.1996, remaining already Additional 03.04.2025, mentioned the Court in Haryana the have yagi dated been dated Some of granted MANINDER 2025.04.23 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CW-167 along with the benefit Chand, has benefits, i.e., been stated Polytechnics later recruited 2004/2007 like the petitioners been given seniority, well, but none these sixteen Chaudhary, service. The intimated 16 petitioners the Regularization Scheme.” none of the policy dated challenge. 7. changed Manish Gupta petitioners’ their regularisation party to 167-2024 in CWP-19046-2019 with connected review applications benefit of ACP scales as well. One has retired from service on 31.12.2 i.e., gratuity, leave encashment, stated in the affidavit that sixteen Polytechnics who had worked on adhoc recruited in regular service either 2004/2007 or by way of regularisation in petitioners with effect from 31.01.1996. given the benefit of ACP scales and some of them have been given none of them has been granted the sixteen employees, namely, Sanjeev hary, Ved Parkash and Sarla Kumari, The affidavit further records, “That vide U.O. no.25/14/Admn-II dated petitioners mentioned above from concerne Regularization Policy-2014 and all are Scheme.” Pertinently, it has not been disputed the petitioners is a party in Manish dated 07.03.1996 and notification challenge. The only ground to deny benefit circumstances, as pleaded by Gupta case ibid. However, the same petitioners’ rights to get the due service and regularisation in terms of policy dated that petition. Further, the earlier 5 applications of the applicants, namely, Naresh 31.12.2022, and has been released retiral and pension under NPS. It has also sixteen other employees of Government adhoc basis since 1992-1993 and were either through the Commission in 2012, had also been regularised 31.01.1996. All these employees have up to Level 3 based upon their given further promotion in service the benefit of PB-IV to date. Five Sanjeev Kalra, Sarita Dhingra, Poonam Kumari, have already retired from “That the Joint Director (Admn dated 19.03.2025 that there are total concerned branch which comes under are covered under the Old Pension disputed by learned State counsel that Manish Gupta case (supra), wherein notification dated 16.06.2014 are under benefit of OPS to the petitioners in the respondents is pendency same will have no bearing on and pensionary benefits based upon dated 07.03.1996, as none of them is earlier objection taken to grant Naresh retiral also Government were in regularised have their service as Five of Poonam from (Admn-II) total under Pension that the under the of the upon is a the MANINDER 2025.04.23 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CW-167 along with pensionary Tyagi case aforementioned therein. Still 03.04.2025, “covered 8. dated 08.02.2024 directing the as well as will be retiring regularisat due will be order. 9. 03.04.2025 Maninder 167-2024 in CWP-19046-2019 with connected review applications pensionary benefits, viz., pendency of SLPs case (supra) no longer subsists aforementioned policy nor the notification Still further, the respondents have 03.04.2025, that similarly placed employees under the Old Pension Scheme”. In view thereof, the applications 08.02.2024 stands reviewed by the respondents to release all due as pensionary benefits under OPS retiring from service, as per their regularisation with effect from 31.01.1996. be released within four weeks of A photocopy of this order be 03.04.2025 6 applications SLPs against the judgment in Yogesh subsists since, concededly, neither notification reviving it has been set aside have admitted in the affidavit, dated employees have been considered Scheme”. applications are allowed and the judgment, allowing the writ petitions and due service benefits to the petitioners, OPS to the ones who have retired their entitlement on the basis 31.01.1996. The benefits which have become of receiving a certified copy of this placed on the connected files. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yogesh the aside dated as judgment, and petitioners, retired or of become this MANINDER 2025.04.23 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.