The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant verdict, dismissing a petition filed by employees of the Haryana government. The employees had challenged the specific cut-off date set by the state for eligibility under the beneficial Old Pension Scheme (OPS).
Court Upholds State's Policy Decision
A bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari presided over the case. The petitioners, who were appointed on or after January 1, 2006, argued against the cut-off date that excluded them from the OPS. They contended that the date was arbitrary and violated their rights.
However, the court took a different view. It ruled that the fixation of a cut-off date for implementing a policy or scheme like the pension plan falls squarely within the domain of a policy decision made by the state government. The judiciary, the bench emphasized, generally does not interfere in such administrative and policy matters unless the decision is found to be manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional.
The Core of the Legal Challenge
The dispute centered on the Haryana government's decision to restore the Old Pension Scheme for certain employees. While the restoration was welcomed, the government attached a critical condition: only those employees who were in service and had opted for the scheme before a specified date would be covered.
This left out a group of employees appointed after January 1, 2006, who were consequently governed by the New Pension Scheme (NPS). They moved the High Court, pleading that the cut-off date was unfair and deprived them of the more secure benefits of the OPS, which guarantees a defined pension based on the last drawn salary and years of service.
Implications of the Judgment
The dismissal of the plea has immediate and clear implications. It provides a strong legal backing to the Haryana government's position on the matter. The state's argument that defining eligibility criteria, including cut-off dates, is essential for the financial planning and orderly implementation of such large-scale welfare schemes has been upheld.
For the petitioner employees, this judgment means they will remain under the ambit of the New Pension Scheme. The NPS is a contributory, market-linked scheme, unlike the fully government-funded OPS. This decision is likely to affect numerous state employees across Haryana who were appointed after the contested date and were hoping for judicial relief.
The ruling underscores a recurring principle in service jurisprudence: courts are reluctant to strike down cut-off dates in policy matters unless a clear case of discrimination or arbitrariness is made out. The bench found no such infirmity in the Haryana government's decision in this instance.
This verdict brings a degree of finality to this particular legal battle over pension eligibility in Haryana, allowing the state administration to proceed with its pension policy framework as originally designed.
