Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana high court has held that employees appointed after Jan 1, 2006, can claim the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) if the recruitment process originated from an advertisement issued before Oct 28, 2005, and a subsequent advertisement was merely a continuation.Allowing three connected writ petitions, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar set aside an order dated Aug 27, 2026, rejecting a woman’s claim for coverage under OPS and held her entitled to the benefit of a Haryana govt memorandum dated May 8, 2023.HC allowed petitioner Swati Devi to exercise her option to switch to OPS within six weeks and directed the state to process her claim and re-fix/release her consequential pensionary/retiral benefits, along with arrears, within a further period of six weeks.Swati Devi had applied for the post of home science mistress following an advertisement dated July 1, 2005. The recruitment was withdrawn and the posts re-advertised on July 20, 2006.Her counsel submitted that the subsequent advertisement expressly protected candidates who had applied under the earlier advertisement by providing that their eligibility, including academic qualifications and age, would be reckoned as on July 1, 2005.She participated in the selection process and was appointed through an order dated Dec 11/12, 2008. She joined service on Dec 17, 2008.Her counsel contended that she was covered by HC’s July 9, 2026, judgment in Om Parkash versus State of Haryana and others, as well as the May 8 office memorandum under which employees recruited against posts/vacancies advertised/notified on or before Oct 28, 2005, though appointed thereafter, are to be considered for coverage under Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016.Opposing the plea, Haryana deputy advocate general Naveen Singh Panwar said that Swati was appointed after Jan 1, 2006, and was recruited through the 2006 advertisement. However, he did not dispute that Swati had applied under the July 1, 2005, advertisement. The state also mentioned finance department’s April 26, 2024, comments recommending that the office memorandum was not meant for re-advertisement of posts.HC observed that it’s clear the recruitment process was not conceived as an independent exercise, but was a continuation of the process initiated through the July 01, 2005, advertisement. “The emphasis under office memorandum is on the date on which the post or vacancy was advertised, not merely on the date of appointment,” the bench said.Justice Brar held that the impugned order had been passed on the basis of a “hyper-technical interpretation” of the office memorandum by relying solely on the date of appointment and the subsequent advertisement while ignoring the original recruitment process.Any amount already contributed or paid under the New Pension Scheme would be adjusted in accordance with law, the bench said.
