Government Cannot Blow Hot and Cold: Haryana’s Arbitrary Withdrawal of Old Pension Scheme for University Employees Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Whimsical Exercise of Power Is Anathema to Rule of Law”— In a landmark ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, emphatically declared that the Haryana Government cannot arbitrarily withdraw the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) benefits extended to University employees whose appointments were based on advertisements issued before the crucial cutoff date of 28th October 2005.

While delivering the verdict in Dr. Hardeep Lal Joshi & Others vs. Kurukshetra University & Others, along with three other connected writ petitions, the Court categorically held that the State’s action of “sudden about-turn without any rationale smacks of high-handedness” and is violative of the constitutional scheme of rule of law.

The High Court quashed the impugned memorandum dated 24th July 2023, which had withdrawn the benefit of OPS extended via the Office Memorandum dated 8th May 2023, and directed the State and the Universities to immediately restore OPS benefits to eligible employees.

“A Government Cannot Act Like an Absolute Monarch” – High Court Declares Withdrawal of OPS Arbitrary, Illegal, and Unconstitutional

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya opened the judgment with a strong observation that the “Constitution does not permit an executive authority to act as it pleases without reason; any such conduct is antithetical to the very concept of rule of law”.

The dispute revolved around the decision of the Haryana Government, which initially allowed employees — who were appointed against posts advertised before 28th October 2005 but joined after 1st January 2006 — to switch from the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) back to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) through its OM dated 8th May 2023. This benefit, extended to government employees, was also directed to be implemented for University employees.

However, in an abrupt and unexplained reversal, the Government issued a memorandum on 24th July 2023, withdrawing this benefit specifically for University employees, claiming “no action is required by Universities in the matter”— a move the Court described as “whimsical and legally unsustainable.”

“Double Standards Are Not the Language of the Law” – Court Slams Haryana’s Contradictory Stance

The Court sharply criticized the Haryana Government’s contradictory approach, stating that the State “cannot treat University employees as State employees when it wants to impose NPS upon them, and then treat them as outsiders when it comes to giving the benefit of OPS”.

The judgment highlighted the disturbing inconsistency: “When it suits the Government, University employees are treated as its own; when it doesn’t, they are treated as strangers. This doublespeak is not merely hypocritical; it is a blatant violation of fairness and equality under the law.”

The Court further remarked that such conduct reflects a “callous attitude towards University employees, who have been made to suffer due to the Government’s apathetic indifference.”

“Clause 15.2.1(iii) of University NPS Is Not Decorative—It’s Binding,” Says the Court

A critical turning point in the judgment came when the Court referred to Clause 15.2.1(iii) of the Kurukshetra University New Pension Scheme, which explicitly mandates:

“Any change(s) in grant of pensionary benefits as made by the Haryana Government to its employees from time to time shall be made applicable to the University employees after approval by the Vice-Chancellor.”

Justice Dahiya emphasized that the University was under a binding obligation to apply pension changes granted by the State to its employees. The University’s failure to act in accordance with this clause was termed “an abdication of its statutory duty”.

“The Stream of Benefits Cannot Be Stopped Midway” – Court Declares OPS Option Irrevocable

The Court noted that the Government, having issued a general notification offering a one-time switch back to OPS for employees covered under NPS but appointed against pre-28.10.2005 advertisements, cannot withdraw it selectively for University employees.

The judgment reads: “The stream of extended benefits flowing from the Central Government to the State Government must logically flow down to the University employees, who were compelled to adopt NPS under State directives. To suddenly dam this stream is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and an affront to fairness.”

“Rule of Law Does Not Permit Executive Whims” – Harsh Words Against Unjust Governance

In some of the strongest language used in recent service law judgments, the Court declared:

“In the constitutional scheme, no executive authority can anoint to itself absolute power to act or not to act at will. Such behavior is alien to the rule of law.”

The Court called the Government’s conduct “whimsical”, “capricious”, and a “deplorable abuse of authority”.

“You Cannot Sleep for 15 Years and Then Wake Up Selectively”— Challenge to NPS Dismissed

Interestingly, the Court rejected the petitioners’ primary challenge to the adoption of NPS back in 2007, observing that “they willingly accepted the new scheme, submitted their PRAN forms, and never objected for over a decade”.

Citing the earlier Division Bench ruling in Ranjeet Singh & Others vs. State of Haryana (2022), the Court stated:

“Much water has flowed under the bridge. The petitioners cannot wake up now to undo what they willingly accepted years ago.”

 “Once OPS Extended, Cannot Be Withdrawn by Whim”

While dismissing the challenge to the original NPS adoption, the Court unequivocally restored the OPS benefits to all petitioners who were appointed against posts advertised before 28th October 2005, in line with the OM dated 08.05.2023.

“The memo dated 24.07.2023 is quashed. The respondents are directed to extend OPS benefits to the petitioners within eight weeks.”

Additionally, the Court imposed costs of ₹5,00,000, holding the Haryana Higher Education Department liable for ₹4,00,000 and Kurukshetra University for ₹1,00,000, to be paid to the petitioners.

In one of the most decisive pronouncements on pension rights, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirmed that “the rule of law does not permit whimsical, autocratic, or inconsistent application of executive power.” The judgment stands as a stern reminder that Governments cannot “blow hot and cold” — compelling institutions to adopt unfavorable policies and then retreating when it comes to granting compensatory benefits.

The verdict not only restores pension security to hundreds of University employees but also fortifies a broader principle: administrative convenience cannot override legal obligations, fairness, and constitutional governance.

Date of decision:  01/07/2025