Punjab and Haryana HC Mandates Time-Bound Disposal of Old Pension Scheme Claims

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced the accountability of state authorities by directing the immediate consideration of employees for the Old Pension Scheme based on prior advertisements. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar heard the civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The petitioners sought a writ of Mandamus to compel the respondent authorities to include them under the Old Pension Scheme (GPF Scheme), citing specific government instructions and established judicial precedents involving similarly situated employees.

Key Takeaways

Protection of Pensionary Rights

Employees appointed against posts advertised prior to the cut-off date of October 28, 2005, maintain a legitimate expectation for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme despite joining service later.

Judicial Consistency

Authorities are duty-bound to apply the ratio of established precedents like [Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP-10970-2025": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 544) and Om Parkash vs. State of Haryana and others to similarly situated employees to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Accountability in Administration

High Courts are increasingly utilizing time-bound mandates to ensure that administrative representations are not left pending indefinitely by state departments.

Mandatory Time-Bound Consideration of Representations

During the proceedings, the petitioners limited their prayer, requesting that the court treat the writ petition as a comprehensive representation to be decided by the competent authority in a time-bound manner. The State counsel did not oppose this request, submitting that the grievance would be considered through a reasoned speaking order.

The Court has following directions:

"...treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others ( "CWP-10970-2025": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 544) and Om Parkash vs. State of Haryana and others. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by the respondent No.1/competent authority."

Ratio

Where a claim for pensionary benefits is squarely covered by existing judicial precedents and government notifications, the competent authority is mandated to decide the representation by passing a reasoned, speaking order within a stipulated timeframe, ensuring the principles of natural justice through a personal hearing.

Background

The dispute originated from advertisements issued by the respondent-University in 2005 (Advertisement Nos. 1/05 and 2/05). The petitioners claimed that since the posts were advertised before October 28, 2005, they were eligible for the Old Pension Scheme under the Office Memorandum dated May 8, 2023, even though they were appointed on or after January 1, 2006. Although the University had adopted these instructions and forwarded the petitioners' claims to the Government of Haryana, no final decision had been reached. The petitioners relied heavily on the findings in Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others ( "CWP-10970-2025": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 544) and Om Parkash vs. State of Haryana and others to assert that their exclusion was legally unsustainable. The High Court disposed of the petition by granting the prayer for a time-bound administrative review.

Case Details:

Case No.: CWP-29566-2026

Case Title: Vijay Shankar Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others

Appearances:

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajat Mor and Mr. Vishesh Dhaka, Advocates

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 19880