JUDGMENT :

Namit Kumar J.

This judgment shall dispose of CWP No. 19659 of 2017, CWP No. 17385 of 2018, CWP No. 10705 of 2019, CWP No. 17957 of 2020 and CWP No. 25094 of 2023, as common questions of law and facts are involved for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP No. 19659 of 2017 titled as "PUDA Employees Welfare Society (Regd.) vs State of Punjab and others".

2. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Certiorari, quashing the letter dated 12.10.2016 (Annexure P-9), whereby the proposal to implement the pension scheme, as approved by the competent authority i.e. respondent No. 3, has been rejected and further setting-aside the letter dated 11.11.2016 (Annexure P-10) vide which the decision of Finance Department has been conveyed by respondent No. 1, to respondent No. 3. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing respondent No. 3 to implement the pension scheme for the members of the petitioner -Society in view of Agenda Item No. 4.11, which has been duly approved in the meeting held on 09.11.1996, by the competent authority.

3. Necessary facts, as have been pleaded in the present petition, are that the members of the petitioner - Society are employees of Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (in short 'PUDA'), erstwhile known as Punjab Housing Development Board and are working on various Technical & Non-Technical posts as well as retired from various posts such as Superintending Engineer, Divisional Engineer, Sub-Divisional Engineer, Draftsman, Estate Officer, Legal Advisor, Superintendent, Assistant, Clerk, etc. In the year 1995, The Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the PRTPD Act, 1995'), came into existence and in consonance with the provisions of Section 182 of the PRTPD Act, 1995, the service regulations were formulated, which govern the service conditions of the employees of PUDA, which is known as Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Employees Service) Regulations, 1999 and as per Regulation No. 23, PUDA is an independent authority and is not governed by the Rules and Regulations of the State Government. An Agenda Item No. 4.11 regarding pension scheme to the employees of PUDA was introduced for consideration and approval of respondent No. 3 (Annexure P-2). In the said agenda, it was stated that the employees of Punjab Housing Development Board, who are transferred to PUDA, are not getting pension but other set of employees who are transferred from Directorate of Housing and Urban Development are getting the same, which is discriminatory. Thereafter, the said Agenda Item No. 4.11 was approved by respondent No. 3 on 09.11.1996 (Annexure P-3). Further, a scheme was placed before respondent No. 3 vide Agenda Item No. 9.08 on 16.10.1998 and in the proceedings of the meeting, the financial viability worked out by the office was noted and it was desired that a detailed case for adoption of pension scheme may be submitted to the Chairman as per decision of Agenda Item No. 4.11 (Annexure P-4 Colly.) and respondent No. 3 duly approved the pension scheme. The matter was further considered to decide as to from which date the pensionary benefits to PUDA employees are to be allowed and respondent No. 3, vide office note dated 19.03.2002 (Annexure P-5), recommended that the pensionary benefits be extended to PUDA employees with prospective effect i.e. from 01.04.2002 and further submitted to the Chairman, who vide his office note dated 02.04.2002 (Annexure P-5), directed that pension scheme may be made applicable to the employees w.e.f. 01.07.1995 i.e. the date on which PUDA came into existence. However, even after obtaining approval from the Competent Authority, the matter was referred by the Chief Administrator to respondent No. 2 i.e. State of Punjab, Department of Finance and respondent No. 2 vide its letter