IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ram Abilakh Yadav ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents Reserved on: 26.11.2025 Pronounced on: 28.11.2025 Uploaded on: 28.11.2025 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate and Ms. Mehak Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

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 Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the option for pension exercised by the petitioner pursuant to the Punjab Government's letter dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure P-3) as a valid option. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to release the petitioner’s monthly pension as well as the arrears of pension from the date of his retirement along with interest @ 18% per annum.

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 in the capacity of a Beldar. He continued in service and ultimately retired on 31.12.2018. The State of Punjab, in a welfare- oriented move, implemented the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1994 Rules’) with effect from 01.04.1990. The aforesaid Rules were notified on

28.07.1994.

3. Rule 3 of the 1994 Rules stipulated that employees who were in service as on 01.04.1990 were to be given a four-month window to exercise their option to join the pension scheme. Employees appointed after 01.04.1990 were to be automatically covered under the pension scheme. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was never informed about the publication of the 1994 Rules and was never called upon to submit his option. Consequently, he had no occasion to exercise his choice within the stipulated period of four months.

4. Thereafter, the Government of Punjab issued a letter dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure P-3) wherein one more opportunity was granted to the employees to exercise their option for the pension scheme. Acting upon this letter, the petitioner submitted his option in favour of the pension scheme within the time frame indicated therein. However, being aggrieved by the non- release of his pension, the petitioner, through his counsel, served a legal notice dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P-9) upon the respondents.

5. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments 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-5); Raman Kapoor vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.15266 of 2014), order dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-6), which was upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No.2099 of

2016 vide order dated 20.07.2018 (Annexure P-7); Kailash Sethi and others vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.25695 of 2016), order dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure P-8). Reliance is further placed on the judgment of the two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in University of Delhi v. Shashi Kiran, 2022 (3) SCT 93

6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner had maliciously concealed the material fact that he had duly exercised his option back in 1994 and had opted to remain out of the 1994 Rules. A copy of the petitioner’s written option form (Annexure R-4/1) was produced to substantiate this contention.

7. It was further contended that the 1994 Rules do not permit the submission of a second or revised option and that the option once exercised thereunder is final and conclusive. Since the petitioner consciously chose to remain under the CPF scheme, he cannot, after several years and upon retirement, seek to claim the benefit of pension. The petitioner is also estopped by his own conduct, having voluntarily