JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J.

In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are all employees of Municipal Committees/Municipal Corporations who were employed prior to 1st of January, 2004 but were regularized after 1st of January, 2004. By way of present writ petitions they claim their rights to be governed by the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 1994 Rules') and not by the Contributory Pension Fund Scheme as promulgated w.e.f. 1st of January, 2004.

2. Replies on behalf of respondent No.4 in CWP-23205-2019 and in CWP-21721-2019 respectively have been filed in Court today. The same are taken on record.

3. The reliance has been placed upon Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2371 of 2010 titled as Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and others (Annexure P-4) as upheld by Apex Court in SLP No.1150 of 2012 vide order dated 30th of July, 2012 and further order passed by Apex Court dated 4th of November, 2015 on review petition preferred by the State which was dismissed observing as under :-

"Order

Review Petition (C) No.2038 of 2013

In Special Leave Petition (C) No.23578 of 2012

After hearing Shri V.K. Bali, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner (s), we are of the opinion that no case for review of order dated 30.07.2012 is made out.

The Review Petition is dismissed accordingly.

In All The Special Leave

Delay condoned, if any.

Heard Shri V.K. Bali and Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner (s).

We are of the opinion that the High Court has not committed any error which would call for our interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, all the Special Leave Petitions dismissed.

We direct the State of Punjab not to file any more special leave petitions against the similar issues as considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment (s) and Order(s)."

4. The issue thus involved in all the writ petitions is : 'whether the petitioners who was in service prior to 1st of January, 2004 but regularized thereafter would be governed by New Contributory Pension Fund Scheme which became applicable after 1st of January, 2004 or they would be governed by Pension Rules in vogue prior to 1st of January, 2004?'.

5. The similar issue has already been dealt with by this Court in detail in CWP No.26858 of 2017 titled as Heera Singh v. State of Punjab and others & other connected writ petitions, wherein this Court held as under :-

"12. All the petitioners are in services of f Corporations. Punjab Government vide Notification dated 28th of July, 1994 notified Punjab Municipal Corporation E.P.F. Rules, 1994 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 71 read with Section 397 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Rule 2(k) and 2(l), Rule 8 and Rule 13 read as under :-

(k) "qualifying service" means the service rendered under a Corporation for which an employee is paid from the Corporation fund and shall include any service rendered under the Government of Punjab, any Improvement Trust, a Committee or any other Public Sector Undertaking immediately before joining the Service;

(l) "Service" means the service rendered under the control of a Corporation;

8. General Provisions relating to grant of pension. - (1) For the purpose of grant of pension to the employees, the rules relating to pension as contained in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Corporations also and for that purpose the terms and expressions not otherwise defined in these rules, shall have the same meaning as assigned to them in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, [Part I :

Provided