CWP-22457-2026 (O&M) 1 of 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 CWP-22457-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Rekha and others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of old pension scheme as the petitioners have submitted the claim by way of Option Form dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure P-11), in view of office memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-10) issued by the Finance Department to Government of Haryana and as the petitioners have applied against the vacancies advertised in the year 2004 i.e. prior to 31.12.2005 and submitted the copies of challans dated 08.09.2004, (Annexure P-2) and as the other similarly situated employees of the respondent Department who have joined in the year 2007 have been granted the benefit of old pension scheme vide order dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P-14) in case of Staff Nurses and; AND/OR further directing the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22457-2026 (O&M) 2 of 11 respondents to open the GPF accounts of the petitioners under the old pension scheme and to issue pension payment order as per old pension scheme as similar orders have been passed in favour of other employees of respondent Department itself vide order dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-15), and to grant all other consequential service benefits, in the interest of justice. 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.3-Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission had advertised 224 posts for recruitment of Multipurpose Health Worker (Female) (hereinafter referred to as ‘MPHW(F)’) vide Advt.No.6/2004 dated 31.08.2004 (Annexure P-1). As per the said Advertisement (Annexure P-1), fee of Rs.500 was required to be submitted for General Category candidates and Rs.250/- was required to be submitted for Reserved Category candidates (under Category Nos. 1 to 9, 11 to 12). Petitioners had duly paid the required fee. The closing date for submission of the application forms was 14.09.2004. Petitioners had duly submitted their applications (Annexure P-2 colly) for the post of MPHW(F) by the stipulated date. Vide letter dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure P-3), petitioner No.1 was called for interview. However, thereafter the petitioners came to know that the said selection process had been cancelled. 3. Subsequently, respondents had issued an Advertisement No. 10/2006 dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure P-5) for 329 posts of MPHW(F). It is submitted that as per the Note 2 of the said Advertisement, it was made clear that candidates who had applied against the previous Advertisement DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22457-2026 (O&M) 3 of 11 No.6/2004 (Annexure P-1), will be eligible against the re-advertised post and shall be exempted from making payment of fee again. Ld. Counsel submits that since petitioners had previously submitted their application forms, no fresh fee was required to be submitted. After scrutiny of the present application forms, petitioners were again called for interview. On 30.06.2007, the Commission declared the final result and petitioners were successful. In pursuance to which petitioners were issued appointment letters dated 18.07.2007 (Annexures P-6 to P-8) by the respondent No.2 for the post of MPHW(F) on recommendation of respondent No.3. After due process, petitioner No.1 had joined at PHC Taraori and petitioner No.2 joined at CHC Nelokheri and petitioner No.3 joined at CHC Ladwa, Kurukshetra. 4. Ld. Counsel submits that vide Notification dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure P-9), the Finance Department of Government of Haryana had notified the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme for the State Government employees; which was introduced vide letter dated 22.08.2008. In the said letter, reference is made to a letter dated 22.12.2005 implementing the New Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘NPS’) w.e.f. 01.01.2006. All Heads of Department were requested to implement NPS in respect of employees who had been appointed on or after 01.01.2006 and directions were issued for allotment of Permanent Pension Account No. to each employee. 5. Thereafter, the Finance Department had issued Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-10), whereby, it was DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22457-2026 (O&M) 4 of 11 informed that an option is required to be taken from the employees who have joined on or after 01.01.2006, against the advertisement issued prior to the introduction of New Pension Scheme as to whether they are willing for implementation of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016. It was observed by the Finance Department that as various representations had been received from the State Government Employees appointed on or after 01.01.2006, requesting for extending the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme under the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume-II, on the ground that their appointments were made against the post/vacancies advertised/notified for recruitment prior to the notification for NPS and such employees have also filed court cases for claiming such benefit and after due consideration, the State Government has decided to give an opportunity to exercise the option for considering them eligible for an also fixed cut-off date for such option as 31.08.2023. 6. Ld. Counsel submits that the contents of Office Memorandum dated 8.5.2023 (Annexure P-10) specifically speaks that "In all cases where the state government employee(s)/servant(s) has been appointed against the post or vacancy which was advertised/notified for recruitment/appointment prior to the date of notification for the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme i.e. 28.10.2005 and is covered under the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (Haryana New Pension Scheme, 2008) on joining service on or after 01.01.2006 may be given one time option to be covered under the Punjab CSR volume-II (now Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016). This option may be exercised by the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22457-2026 (O&M) 5 of 11 concerned state government employees/servant's latest by 31.08.2023." It is argued that in the present case, the requisition was sent by the respondent Department to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission for recruitment of 329 posts of MPHW (F), which were vacant after the date of issuance of Advertisement No. 6/2004 (Category No. 8) was issued by the Staff Selection Commission with the closing date as 14.09.2004. As such, the petitioners were entitled for seeking the one-time option prior to the given date for obtaining the benefit of old pension scheme. 7. Accordingly, petitioners had submitted their claim opting for the OPS being the employees who were recruited against the vacancies Advertisement notified for recruitment on or before 28.10.2005. Learned counsel reiterates that as the petitioners had applied against the Advt. No.6/2004 dated 31.08.2004 (Annexure P-1) which had been re- advertised in the year 2006, the petitioners were eligible under OPS. Even no fresh fee had been charged by the respondents when the petitioners submitted their application forms against the Advt. No.10/2006 dated 22.12.2006. Thus, it was in continuation of the old selection process of 2004. 8. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued letter dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure P-13) directing all Civil Surgeons/Principal Medical Officers of Haryana State to verify which employees are covered under the Government Instructions dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-10) for grant of OPS. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22457-2026 (O&M) 6 of 11 9. Ld. counsel for the petitioners further submits that as evident from Annexure P-14, various staff employees of the respondent No.1 similarly situated as the present petitioners, who were also appointed in the year 2007 in pursuance to Advt. No.6/2004, have been granted benefit of OPS. Yet, after submitting required option, petitioners have not been granted benefit of OPS. It is contended that the petitioners are eligible to get benefit of OPS as they have applied against the Advt. No. 6/2004. Especially as the same benefit has been granted to the persons whose names were borne in Annexure P-14, and. Thus, the impugned order is discriminatory. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and respondents be directed to grant the benefit of OPS. 10. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that as per the Rules only those persons who have been appointed before 01.01.2006 are to be granted benefit of OPS. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that Category 8 of MPHW(F) of the petitioners in the said Advt. No.6/2004 dated 31.08.2004 (Annexure P-1) stood cancelled vide Public Notice (Annexure P-4). Accordingly, no benefit can accrue to the petitioners. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 11. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioners. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22457-2026 (O&M) 7 of 11 12. It is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to benefit of OPS in view of the fact that they had applied for and had been called for interview for selection to post of MPHW(F) in pursuance to Advt.No.6/2004 dated 31.08.2004 (Annexure P-1) published by respondent No.3-Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, where by 224 posts in said Category 8 were advertised. In view of the fact that petitioners had participated in the selection process under Advt. No.6/2004 dated 31.08.2004 (Annexure P-1), learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to contend that since no fee was charged from the petitioners while submitting their application forms for the subsequent Advt. No.10/2006 dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure P-5), therefore, their present appointment dated 18.07.2007 is in continuance of their previous applications submitted under Advt. No.6/2004; and thus, they are entitled to benefit of OPS. 13. The said claim of the petitioners is far-fetched. It is undisputed fact on record that the Advt. No.6/2004 dated 31.08.2004 (Annexure P-1) stood cancelled qua Category No.8 of MPHW(F) vide Public Notice dated 09.11.2005 as mentioned in Public Notice (Annexure P-4). The said Public Notice (Annexure P-4) further states that “.........The candidates who had earlier applied against these categories will also be eligible against the re-advertised posts and such candidates will be exempted from the payment of application fee. However, such candidates will have to apply afresh along with proof of depositing the application fee. They are required to attach the attested copy of Treasury Challan or DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22457-2026 (O&M) 8 of 11 IPO, as the case may be, along with the flash application form and will produce the Original Treasury Challan/IP of (Counter Foil) at the time of interview/test.” Thus, it is made crystal clear that candidate such as the petitioners who had applied in the Advt. No.6/2004 dated 31.08.2004, would have to apply afresh. However, they shall only not be required to pay the application fee again. On this flimsy and slim ground that petitioners were not required to pay application fee in the second Advt. No.10/2006 dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure P-5), it cannot be said that petitioners are to be considered to be appointed prior to 1.1.2006; and therefore, entitled to benefit of OPS. Admittedly, letters of appointment were issued to the petitioners on 18.07.2007 (Annexures P-6 to P-8) under Advt.No.10/2006 dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure P-5), and the same was whole new selection process. Vide Advt.No.10/2006 dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure P-5), 329 posts of MPHW(F) have been advertised and it is clearly mentioned therein that the 224 posts of Category No. 8 previously advertised vide Advt. No.6/2004, has been cancelled; however, candidates who had applied against this Category no.8 were granted exemption from filing fresh fee. Thus, merely on this basis, by no stretch of the imagination, can the appointment of the petitioners were taken to be prior to 1.1.2006. 14. Furthermore, petitioners have relied upon the Memo dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-10), to submit that vide the said Memorandum, the State Government had notified that benefit of OPS would be available to government employees who have been appointed against DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22457-2026 (O&M) 9 of 11 posts/vacancies which were advertised/notified for recruitment/appointment prior to 28.10.2005 i.e. date of notification of NPS. However, even the said contention is misconceived. The Memo dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-10) reads as follows: - “5. The State Government, after due/consideration, has decided that: (i) in all cases where the State Government employee(s) / servant(s) has been appointed against a post or vacancy which was advertised / notified for recruitment / appointment, prior to the date of notification for New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme i.e. 28.10.2005 and is covered under the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (Haryana New Pension Scheme, 2008) on joining service on or after 01.01.2006, may be given a one-time option to be covered under the Punjab CSR Vol.-II (now Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016). This option may be exercised by the concerned State Government employee(s) / servant(s) latest by 31st August, 2023. (ii) those Government employee(s) / servant(s) who are eligible to exercise option in accordance with point no. (i) above, but who do not exercise this option by the stipulated date of 31st August, 2023, shall continue to be covered by the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (Haryana New Pension Scheme, 2008).” 15. A bare reading of the above shows that even benefit of the said memo is available to persons who have been “appointed against a post or vacancy which was advertised / notified for recruitment / DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22457-2026 (O&M) 10 of 11 appointment, prior to the date of notification for New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme i.e. 28.10.2005 ……”. Admittedly, appointments of the petitioners on 18.07.2007 are in pursuance to Advt.No.10/2006 dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure P-5) i.e. after notification of NPS on 28.10.2005. Therefore, petitioners can derive no benefit, even from the said memo dated 8.5.2023. 16. Contention of the petitioners claiming parity with the persons borne in list (Annexure P-14), is also misconceived. Perusal of the record clearly shows that vide Public Notice dated nil (Annexure P-4), Advt.No.6/2004 was cancelled qua Category No.8/ MPHW (F), only. Whereas the persons borne on the list (Annexure P-14) are Category no.1/Staff Nurses of the Advt.No.6/2004. No doubt, the said appointments are of the year 2007. However, as the said appointees borne on the list (Annexure P-14) have been appointed against vacancies occurring prior to 28.10.2005, therefore, they have been accorded benefit of Memo dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-10); and thereby permitted to exercise option for grant of OPS. It is further clarified that persons borne on the list (Annexure P-14) are all Staff Nurses i.e. Category No.1 in Advt.No.6/2004 dated 31.08.2004 (Annexure P-1). Vide Public Notice dated nil, the said Category No.1/Staff Nurses was not cancelled; whereas Category No.8/ MPHW(F) i.e. petitioners’ Category, was cancelled. Therefore, appointment of the said persons/Staff Nurses have been made in pursuance to Advt.No.6/2004. Accordingly, posts of Staff Nurses were not re-advertised; whereas posts of MPHW(F) were duly re-advertised DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22457-2026 (O&M) 11 of 11 vide Advt.No.10/2006 dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure P-5); in pursuance to which petitioners came to be appointed on 18.7.2007. Thus, case of the petitioners is on a different footing and is not comparable to the appointees on the list (Annexure P-14). 17. It is further to be seen that the persons borne in list (Annexure P-14) were appointed in pursuance to order dated 22.01.2007 passed by this Court in CWP-2896-2005 titled as Rachna and others vs. State of Haryana and another. Another distinguishing factor is that the result of the persons borne in list (Annexure P-14) was declared on 21.12.2004 unlike the petitioners. Thus, petitioners cannot claim parity with the appointees of Annexure P-14, as the result of the petitioners was never declared in pursuance to Advt.No.6/2004; whereas in the case of the appointees of Annexure P-14, the selection process had been concluded. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and findings. 19. Keeping in view the above-noted position, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. 20. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 23.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.30 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document