(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:23)(cid:12)ti(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:13)

(cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:12)ti(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:13)

(cid:13)(cid:13) CWP(cid:5)17831(cid:5)2023 Yashpal ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents (cid:13) (cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:13)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 (cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:27)(cid:28) (cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:30)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:27)(cid:20)(cid:31)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:19) (cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:16)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:13) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:24)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:20)

(cid:3)!"#"$%(cid:28) Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate and Ms. Mehak Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Jigyasa Kharbanda, Advocate for Mr. Karanjit, Advocate for respondent No.3.

(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:16)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:13) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:24)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:20)&(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:31)

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 respondent(cid:5)department to accept the petitioner’s option for pension and grant him monthly pension under the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 along with all consequential benefits.

(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:30)(cid:13)(cid:24)(cid:23)(cid:1)’(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:12)ti

2. Briefly stated, petitioner, Yashpal, joined the service of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, as a Sweeper on 23.08.1987. He continued in service and ultimately retired on 22.08.2017. The State of Punjab, in a welfare(cid:5)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(cid:5)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. The petitioner did not submit any option form within this stipulated period of four months. Consequently, he continued to be a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme throughout his service.

4. During his service, the petitioner availed of CPF benefits. As per the service record maintained by the respondents, he withdrew 90% of his CPF ₹

dues, amounting to 3,04,000/(cid:5), on 07.09.2016. Upon his retirement, he ₹

received a final payment of 11,12,724/(cid:5), which included Gratuity of ₹ ₹

7,29,534/(cid:5) and Leave Encashment of 3,83,190/(cid:5). He also received the final ₹

payment of his CPF, amounting to 5,10,222/(cid:5). However, almost five years after his retirement, the petitioner submitted an option form for grant of pension under the 1994 Rules on 03.10.2022 (Annexure P(cid:5)1).

5. Having received no response to his option or to a subsequent legal notice dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure P(cid:5)6), the petitioner has approached this Court.

(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:12)

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner was never informed or given an opportunity to exer