IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Chandro Devi ....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. Nitesh Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Sunint Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.4 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 respondent-department to accept the petitioner’s option for pension and grant her monthly pension under the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 along with all consequential benefits.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, petitioner, Smt. Chandro Devi, was appointed on a regular basis as a Class-IV Safai Sewak (Sweeper) with the Respondent-

Department on 06.10.1980. After rendering 43 years, 5 months, and 26 days of continuous, satisfactory, and unblemished service, she superannuated from service on 31.03.2024. 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 (Annexure P-1).

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. The petitioner, being an illiterate and uneducated Class-IV employee, was never made aware of this critical option or its lifelong financial implications.

4. Upon nearing retirement, the petitioner discovered to her shock that she had been denied pensionary benefits solely due to her failure to exercise the option within the stipulated period back in 1994. Consequently, The petitioner, soon after her retirement, submitted a detailed representation dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-10) to the respondent authorities, requesting the grant of pension and expressly stating her readiness and willingness to refund the employer's share of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) contribution.

5. The plight of the petitioner is not an isolated one. The Government of Punjab itself recognized the difficulty faced by such employees. In a meeting held under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister on 31.10.2011, it was proposed to grant a fresh opportunity to employees who had not opted for the pension scheme earlier. A copy of the relevant letter is annexed as Annexure P-

2. However, this proposal was never implemented. A subsequent departmental letter dated 01.03.2012 (Annexure P-3) clarified that no proceedings could be initiated for granting a fresh option without a formal amendment to the 1994 Rules, which was never carried out. Left with no alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court.

CONTENTIONS

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner, being an illiterate Class-IV employee, was wholly incapable of understanding the procedural formalities of the 1994 Rules. The respondent- department was under a solemn duty to ensure that such an employee was properly informed and assisted. Its failure to do so constitutes a grave lapse, and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer a lifelong penalty of denial of pension for this procedural lapse. Further, the 1994 Rules is a welfare legislation. Such statutes must be interpreted liberally and in favor of the employee for whom they are made. A hyper-technical and pedantic interpretation that denies benefits due to a procedural lapse by an illiterate employee defeats the very purpose of the welfare scheme.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reli