IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 13.10.2025 Pronounced on: October 28, 2025 Devinder Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter ‘PRTC’), to release the petitioner's retirement benefits, namely, gratuity, leave encashment, General Provident Fund (GPF), and pension, under the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1992 Regulations'), along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner joined the services of the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) on 15.07.1991 and served as a Driver until his retirement on 31.10.2019. The 1992 Regulations, which provide for pensionary benefits, came into force on 15.06.1992. As per Regulation 4, existing employees were required to exercise an option to be governed by these new regulations. It is not disputed that the petitioner, within the stipulated period of six months, exercised his option by submitting the requisite 'Option and Undertaking Form' on 14.12.1992 (Annexure P-2), thereby opting for the pension scheme under the 1992 Regulations. A crucial condition for the option to be valid was that the employee should not have taken any advance from the Employer's share of the Contributory Provident Fund (hereinafter ‘CPF’).

3. Upon retirement on 31.10.2019, the petitioner was not released his pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and GPF amounts. Vide letter dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure P-5), the Corporation asked him to submit relevant documents. The petitioner complied by submitting a representation dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure P-6), providing copies of his option form and an extract from the official register (Annexure P-4) which listed him as a member of the pension scheme. Despite further representations, including one dated 20.03.2020 (Annexure P-7), the benefits were not released, compelling the filing of the instant writ petition.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioner validly exercised his option for the 1992 Pension Scheme within the stipulated time and as per the prescribed procedure. The option, once exercised, is final under Regulation 4 of the 1992 Regulations. The respondent-Corporation's own record, specifically the register (Annexure P- 4), confirms his membership in the pension scheme. Therefore, a vested right to receive pensionary benefits under the 1992 Regulations crystallized in his favour.

5. It is submitted that the respondent-Corporation cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. The failure to transfer the petitioner's account from the CPF scheme to the GPF scheme under the 1992 Regulations was an internal administrative error and a lapse on the part of the Corporation. The petitioner, being a Driver and a field staff, cannot be expected to have monitored the internal accounting heads of the deductions made from his salary. The Corporation, having accepted his option, was duty-bound to correct its records and ensure deductions were made under the correct head. Reliance is heavily placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. Ashit Chakraborty 2023 SCC Online SC 594 and the judgments of this Court in Harpal Singh v. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, 2022 (4) SCT 325 and Japinder Singh Vs. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and another (CWP No. 32156 of 2019)

6. Per Contra, learned counsel for res