Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 January, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001146
111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-19275
19275-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 08
08-01-2025
BALWINDER SINGH ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. T.P.S Chawla, Sr. DAG Punjab.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance be
being
ing raised by the
petitioner is qua
qua the order dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure P
P-13)
13) whereby the
claim of the petitioner to be considered under the Old Pension Scheme has
been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision to
appoint the petitioner on compassionate ggrounds
rounds was taken by the competent
authority on 27.11.2003, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-8
P
but the actual appointment letter was issued on 08.01.2004.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the claim
of the petitioner to be considered under the Old Pension Scheme has been
declined by the respondent only on the ground that keeping in view the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001146
CWP-19275-2024 (O&M) -2-
Instructions dated 02.03.2004, as the petitioner was appointed after
01.01.2004, the benefit under the Old Pension Scheme cannot be granted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once,
the decision had already been taken to appoint the petitioner in November,
2003 and the direction was also given by the competent authority to issue
appointment order as well, merely that the respondent took more than one
month to issue actual appointment order will not take away the right of the
petitioner to be considered under the Old Pension Scheme.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that where
the selection process was concluded prior to 01.01.2004 but the
appointments were made after the said date, this Court while passing order
in bunch of petitions including CWP No.18043 of 2018 titled "Hitesh
Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.", decided on 18.11.2022,
has already granted the benefit to petitioners therein under the Old Pension
Scheme has been granted by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi
High Court, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Writ Petition (Civil) 756 of 2020 titled "Davinder Singh Brar Vs. Union
of India", which judgment has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India hence, the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of benefit
under the Old Pension Scheme.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that by
placing upon the reliance upon the judgment in Hitesh Kumar's case
(supra) as well as Davinder Singh Brar's case (supra), benefit has also
been given in CWP No.9893 of 2019 titled "Sheeru Vs. State of Punjab
and anr.".
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001146
CWP-19275-2024 (O&M) -3-
7. Learned counsel for the respondent concedes the fact that the
decision to appoint the petitioner was taken in November, 2003 by the
competent authority much prior to the date when the New Pension Scheme
was made operational i.e. 01.01.2004, but submits that as, the actual
appointment order was issued on 08.01.2004, the said date is to be taken into
consideration for adjudging the claim of the petitioner for the grant of New
Penion Scheme or Old Pension Scheme hence, the petitioner has rightly
been granted the benefit under the New Pension Scheme.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the records of the present case with their able assistance.
9. Once, the claim of the petitioner attained finality for the grant
of appointment on 27.11.2003 as per the decision of the competent authority,
and direction was given to issue the appointment order to the petitioner, the
delay in issuing the appointment order prior to 01.01.2004 is attributable to
the State of Punjab only. No explanation has come as to why, the
appointment order was issued after a period of 1½ month of deciding to
appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. Further, in somewhat
similar circumstances, the benefit has already been extended to the petitioner
in Hitesh Kumar's case (supra) and Sheeru's case (supra).
10. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute
the fact that where the selection process had already been over prior to the
operation of the New Pension Scheme even though, the appointment order
was issued thereafter, the benefit under the Old Pension Scheme cannot be
denied as per the judgment in Hitesh Kumar's case (supra).
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001146
CWP-19275-2024 (O&M) -4-
11. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to point
out any differentiating fact not to give the benefit of the judgment in Hitesh
Kumar's case (supra) or Sheeru's case (supra) to the petitioner.
12. Keeping in view the above, as the claim of the petitioner for the
grant of the appointment had already been finalised by the respondents prior
to 01.01.2004 merely that the appointment order was issued thereafter, will
not take away the right of the petitioner to be governed under the Old
Pension Scheme.
13. Present petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are
directed to treat the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme for all intents
and purposes.
14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
08-01-2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sapna Goyal
JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking: YES/NO
Whether reportable: YES/NO
4 of 4
