1 CWP-11603-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 CWP-11603-2026 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 Kitabo Devi .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Ms. Ishita Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Nain, DAG Haryana-State. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.07.2021 (Annexure P-9) whereby the respondent dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure P-6) claiming benefit of old pension scheme has been dismissed by respondent No.3. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to grant service benefits in view of judgment dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure P-3) in the case titled as Jai Bhagwan Versus State of Haryana and judgment dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure P-10) in the case titled as PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-11603-2026 Manohar Lal and another Versus State of Haryana, whereby similar part time employees have been held entitled for service benefits under the old pension scheme. Further directing the respondents to grant service benefits after considering part time service rendered by petitioner as qualifying service for applying old pension scheme and to grant similar benefits to petitioner including opening of GPF account of serving employees and release pension to the retired employees along with other service/retiral benefits w.e.f. date of retirement of petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum. 2. On 20.04.2026, the following order was passed by this Court:- Learned State Counsel, appearing on advance notice, seeks an adjournment to get instructions as to whether the petitioner is similarly placed as the petitioners in CWP- 17338-2024, Annexure P-10, which was allowed in terms of judgment rendered by the Division Bench in LPA-1892-2019 titled State of Haryana and others Versus Jai Bhagwan, vide order dated 03.09.2024. Against the said order, LPA has also been dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2025, Annexure P-11. Adjourned to 12.05.2026. 3. Today, learned State Counsel is unable to controvert the fact that the petitioner is similarly situated to the petitioners in CWP-1048-2016, Jai Bhagwan Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 01.03.2019 (Annexure P-3) and CWP-17338-2024, Manohar Lal and another Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 03.09.2024 (Annexure P-10). It is further not disputed that the Letters Patent Appeal, bearing LPA-1051-2025 titled State of Haryana Versus Manohar Lal and others, preferred against PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-11603-2026 the aforesaid judgment, stands dismissed vide judgment dated 04.04.2025 and that the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.18591-18592 of 2025 preferred thereagainst has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P-12). However, learned State Counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Jai Bhagwan and Manohar Lal (supra). 4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the judgments rendered in Jai Bhagwan (supra) and Manohar Lal (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 6. Needless to observe that in the event the case of the petitioner is found to be squarely covered by the judgments rendered in Jai Bhagwan (supra) and Manohar Lal (supra), the petitioner shall be held entitled to all the consequential service and retiral benefits, including the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme after taking into consideration the part-time service rendered by the petitioner as qualifying service, together with all consequential monetary benefits in accordance with law. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 09.07.2026 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document