IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 27.02.2025 Pronounced on: 04.03.2025 Kuldip Singh and others ......Appellants Vs.

Punjabi University, Patiala and others ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Gurnam Kaur Turka, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate, for Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), whereby the civil suit filed by the mother of the appellants for entitlement to the full pension to her deceased husband Narain Singh with effect from 01.09.1990 to 25.08.1992, was dismissed. Further challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated

29.11.1999 passed by learned trial Court, was also dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Narain Singh (since deceased) father of the appellants was appointed as Morter Mate on work- charge basis on 05.09.1967 in the respondent-University. His services were lateron regularized and he retired from service on 31.08.1990. Narain Singh expired on 25.08.1992. Respondent-University issued a notification in the year 1992, whereby, the services of employees of the respondent-University were converted to pensionable service. One of the conditions under the pension scheme as mentioned in the notification of the year 1992 was that the amount of Contributory Provident Fund along with interest was to be returned to the respondent-University. Accordingly, the amount of Contributory Provident Fund, University share along with interest was deposited by the mother of the appellants, as per requirement under the rules. The mother of the appellants was granted family pension with effect from 26.08.1992, whereas as per the notification issued by the respondent- University and the service rules applicable to the employees, the mother of the appellants was entitled to pension with effect from 01.09.1990. Since to the representation filed by the mother of the appellants asking for pension with effect from 01.09.1990, as per notification of the year 1992, no response was given by the respondent-University, therefore, the mother of the appellants filed a civil suit on 09.04.1997. The same was dismissed on the ground of limitation by the learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999. The appellant challenged the same before the learned First Appellate Court, which vide its judgment and decree dated

25.07.2001, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that though both the Courts below have held mother of the appellants entitled to the pension with effect from 01.09.1990, still on the ground of limitation, the civil suit as well as appeal filed by the mother of the appellants were dismissed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the civil suit filed by the mother of the appellants and the appeal filed by them have rightly been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of the case.

6. A perusal of the record shows that undisputedly, the notification of the year 1992, whereby, the services of the employees of the respondent- University were converted to pensionable, was issued by the respondent-

University.

7. Further, the deceased Narain Singh could not opt for, in response to the notification issued in the year 1992.

8. However, vide notification dated 12.07.1995, special chance was given by the respondent-University to the employees, who could not opt for pension.

9. Since Narain Singh,