111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 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 being raised by the petitioner is qua the order dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure P-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 grounds was taken by the competent authority on 27.11.2003, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-8 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 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.”.

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 Hites