JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-8), whereby his claim for pension was rejected. The petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the option for pension exercised by him pursuant to the Punjab Government’s letter dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) as valid, and to release his monthly pension along with arrears from the date of his retirement, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner joined the service of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana (Respondent No. 4) in the year 1979 as a Sewerman. After serving for approximately 35 years, the petitioner initially reached the age of retirement on 30.06.2014 (Annexure P-1). Subsequently, he was granted an extension of two years in service (Annexure P-2) and ultimately retired from Zone-D, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, on 30.06.2016.

3. It is submitted that the Government of Punjab had issued a notification dated 28.07.1994, published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 29.07.1994, which introduced the “Municipal Corporation Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994” (hereinafter referred to as ‘1994 Pension Rules’). Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was never informed about these rules at the time of their publication, nor was he ever called upon or given an opportunity to exercise his option under the said rules. Thereafter, the Government of Punjab issued a letter dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) providing one more opportunity to employees to exercise their option for the pension scheme. Acting upon this second opportunity, the petitioner exercised his option for pension within the stipulated time frame. Consequently, his Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) bearing no. 3175 was changed/transferred to a General Provident Fund (GPF) account, and he was allotted GPF account no. 8903.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that despite exercising the valid option, the respondents failed to release his pensionary benefits. This led the petitioner to serve a legal notice dated 06.04.2021 (Annexure P-6). When no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court via CWP No. 19466 of 2021, which was disposed of on 27.09.2021 (Annexure P-7) with directions to the respondents to decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order. In purported compliance, respondent no. 4 passed the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-8), rejecting the claim on the ground that the petitioner had earlier opted out of the pension scheme and could not change his option.

5. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in Jagtar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 18430 of 2013), order dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure P-9); Raman Kapoor vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 15266 of 2014), order dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-10), which was upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No. 2099 of 2016 vide order dated 20.07.2018 (Annexure P-11); Kailash Sethi and others vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 25695 of 2016), order dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure P-12).

6. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondents contended that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, specifically that he had duly exercised his written option in 1994. In that original option, the petitioner had voluntarily chosen to “opt out” of the 1994 Pension Rules and remain under the Contributory Provident Fund (hereinafter ‘CPF’) scheme. A translated copy of the petitioner's signed option form was produced as Annexure R-1/1T.

7. It is argued that as per Rule 1(3) and Rule 3 of the 1994 Rules, the option once exercised is final and conclusive, and there is no provision for a “second opti