113 (5 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. LPA-2588-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29^th August, 2025 KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA .…...Appellant(s)

V/s.

DR. HARDEEP LAL JOSHI AND OTHERS …....Respondent(s)

2. LPA-2596-2025 (O&M)

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA .…...Appellant(s)

V/s.

DR. CHAND RAM JILOVA AND OTHERS …....Respondent(s)

3. LPA-2598-2025 (O&M)

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA .…...Appellant(s)

V/s.

DR. BALJEET SINGH SAHARAN AND OTHERS …....Respondent(s)

4. LPA-2601-2025(O&M)

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA .…...Appellant(s)

V/s.

DR. RANJANA AND OTHERS …....Respondent(s)

5. LPA-2605-2025(O&M)

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA .…...Appellant(s)

V/s.

DR.RAMESH KUMAR KAIT AND OTHERS …....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, for the appellants.

Mr. Vibhu Agnihotri, Advocate for the Caveator/Respondent No.1 in LPA-2601-2025.

Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Lather, Advocate for the Caveator(s)/respondent(s)

in LPAs-2605 and 2596 of 2025.

****

CM-6514-LPA-2025 in LPA-2588-2025 CM-6530-LPA-2025 in LPA-2596-2025 CM-6535-LPA-2025 in LPA-2598-2025 CM-6542-LPA-2025 in LPA-2601-2025 CM-6554-LPA-2025 in LPA-2605-2025 Delay in filing of these appeals has been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, applications are allowed and delay in filing the appeals is condoned.

MAIN CASES

1. By this common order, the present five connected Letters Patent Appeals shall be decided, wherein the appellants-University has assailed order dated 01.07.2025 of the learned Single Bench, whereby a set of five Writ Petitions, filed by the appellants herein, were allowed and direction is issued to extend the benefit of opting to Old Pension Scheme also to the employees of the appellant-University vide Office Memorandum (OM) dated 08.05.2023. Learned Single Bench has further directed the imposition of cost of `4,00,000/- upon Department of Higher Education, Government of Haryana, and remainder cost of `1,00,000/- was imposed upon the appellant-University.

2. Learned Single Bench has interfered in the matter and the unilateral recall of such option only for the employees of the appellant-

University, has not been found to be backed by any justifiable grounds.

3. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:-

“8.4. In the conspectus of the facts enumerated herein before, the impugned memo was required to be made applicable to the University employees as well. It is because the State Government introduced NPS for its employees vide notification dated 18.08.2008, following the footsteps of the Central Government. The University was also asked to follow suit leading to introduction of the University NPS there. Later, the Central Government decided to give one-time option to its employees covered under the NPS to opt for the old scheme; the State Government also gave the same benefit to its employees vide OM dated 08.05.2023. This makes it incumbent for the Government to extend this benefit to the University employees also, and its order dated 13/17.07.2023 was a step in that direction; its sudden withdrawal without any reasonable basis renders the decision whimsical. Evidently, the University was asked to frame new pension scheme for its employees on the lines of the one framed by the State Government for its employees, and it did so. Once the State Government allowed the category of its employees appointed against the posts advertised prior to the date of notification for New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, i.e., 28.10.2005, to go back to the old scheme by exercising an option, as a necessary corollary the benefit was required to be extended to the same category of the University employees also. To see it from another angle, the stream of extended benefits of one-time option flowing from the Central Government notification to that effect, dated 03.03.2023, which reached the State Government l