JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned speaking order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-11), impugned communication dated 12.11.2025 (Annexure P-12) and impugned office memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-6), to the extent that it has not been made applicable to the employees of the Boards and Corporations. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners in Old Pension Scheme (OPS) and not in New Pension Scheme (NPS) and after considering the petitioners in OPS, all the consequential benefits be granted to them. Another prayer has been made to direct respondents No.3 and 4 to adopt the office memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) and make the same applicable to the employees of the respondent/Board and thereafter, consequential benefits be granted to the petitioners as the petitioners are similarly situated employees like the other government employees since they had been recruited in pursuance to 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.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula (Annexure P-1) on 19.07.2005 for various posts like Assistant Secretary, Mandi Supervisor and Auction Recorder. The petitioners applied in response to the said advertisement and were successfully selected. Thereafter, appointment letters were issued to petitioners No. 1 and 3 to 6 on 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-2) for the post of Auction Recorder/Clerk, while petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector on 25.10.2006 (Annexure P-3). The appointment letters mentioned that the service of the petitioners would be governed by the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme as per the Government Notification dated 28.10.2005 (Annexure P-4). Prior to this notification, service in the respondent/Board was pensionable under the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committees Employees Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1989 (Annexure P-5). Subsequently, the Finance Department issued an office memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-6), allowing the employees recruited against the vacancies advertised prior to 28.10.2005, a one-time option to switch to the Old Pension Scheme. In accordance with the said office memorandum, the petitioners submitted their options for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (Annexure P-7). Although a committee constituted by the Chief Administrator of the Board initially found the petitioners eligible for the Old Pension Scheme (Annexure P-9), however, their claim was rejected later on by passing the impugned speaking order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-11). Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were recruited pursuant to an advertisement dated 19.07.2005, which is prior to the notification dated 28.10.2005 (Annexure P-4) introducing the New Pension Scheme. The delay in issuance of appointment letters and joining of service was entirely attributable to the respondents, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer the adverse financial consequences. He further submits that the office memorandum dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) is a beneficial policy decision which is intended to remove hardship and anomaly arising out of delayed appointments and the petitioners squarely fall within its ambit. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per Rule 15 of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 2008, the Board is governed by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committees Employees Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules,