JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter dated 19.10.2021 (Annexure P-13) along with the proceedings report of the committee dated 22.06.2021 (Annexure P-12), whereby the claim of the petitioner to be considered a member of the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension/Gratuity & General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1992 Regulations’) was declined. The petitioner further seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent-Corporation to treat him as a member of the General Provident Fund (‘GPF’) Scheme instead of the Contributory Provident Fund (‘CPF’)Scheme for all intents and purposes.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Junior Engineer (Civil) on ad hoc basis for 89 days vide order dated 16.01.1992 (Annexure P-1). His ad hoc tenure was subsequently extended through various orders dated 10.04.1992 (Annexure P- 2), 10.07.1992 (Annexure P-3) and 23.10.1992 (Annexure P-4), each for a period of 89 days. Crucially, while the petitioner was serving on ad hoc basis, the respondent-Corporation framed the 1992 Regulations (Annexure P-5)which came into force on 15.06.1992.

3. It is contended that on 28.12.1992, the petitioner was issued a fresh appointment order as a Junior Engineer on a regular basis with a probation period of six months (Annexure P-6). His services were eventually regularized effective from 28.06.1993 vide office order dated 08.06.1994 (Annexure P-7), and he continues to remain in service. It is argued that since the petitioner’s regular appointment occurred after the 1992 Regulations came into force, he is governed by Clause 3(1)(i) of the said Regulations, which provides that the scheme applies automatically to employees appointed on a “whole time and regular basis” on or after the date of issuance of the Regulations.

4. Learned counsel submitted that as the petitioner was not a regular employee on 15.06.1992 (the date of notification), there was no requirement or occasion for him to exercise an “option” under Clause 3(1)(ii) or Clause 4 of the Regulations, as those provisions applied only to employees already working on a regular basis who wished to shift from CPF to the new Pension Scheme. It is the petitioner’s case that the Corporation committed a wrong by continuing to deduct CPF from his salary instead of GPF, and they cannot now take advantage of their own administrative lapse.

5. It is argued that the petitioner made numerous representations to the respondent-Corporation over the years, seeking to be treated as a member of the Pension Scheme. However, no decision was communicated to him on these representations. On 11.07.2019 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the respondent-Corporation in this regard and upon this representation, the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation constituted a committee comprising four senior officers to examine the petitioner’s case.

6. Learned counsel submitted that as per the information received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, certain employees whose services were regularised after 15.06.1992 were indeed treated as members of the 1992 Pension Scheme. Additionally, the petitioner has provided a list of employees who were already working on regular basis prior to 15.06.1992 and who never opted for the Pension Scheme, yet were treated as its members, with the respondent-Corporation deducting GPF from their salaries w.e.f. 15.06.1992. A comparative chart of such employees has been provided in Paragraph 17 of the writ petition. However, since the committee did not submit any report for a considerable period, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure P-9) and a reminder dated 20.11.2020 (Annexure P-10)