241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.12.2025 Jaswant Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Harpreet Singh Gharuan, Advocate for respondent No.4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure P-11), whereby, respondent No.4 declined to accept the claim of the petitioner for pension scheme and grant him the consequential pension and other retiral dues on his retirement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner served as non-provincialized employee in the Zone C of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana as Oil Man and retired on 31.12.2019 after availing the extension of service of two years. During the service of the petitioner, the Government of Punjab issued a notification on 29.07.1994 in which the Punjab Municipal Corporation Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 (in short ‘Rules of 1994’) were published. The said rules are fully applicable in the case of the petitioner. The Rules of 1994 provided that employees shall have to opt for the said rule within a period of four months from the date of publication of the said Rule subject to the condition that they shall have to refund the Corporation Contribution towards the Contributory Provident Fund including interest received by them with simple interest on the whole amount @10 % per annum from the date of the withdrawal to the date of return. He relies upon the notification (Annexure P-1) and submits that the notification was made applicable to provincialized employees of the Corporation and it was stipulated that in case of employees who are members of the non-provincialized services of the Corporation, they shall come into force from such date as the concerned Corporation may determine by a resolution passed in this behalf. He further emphasized on the fact that no such resolution was passed, as such, the petitioner was obligated to give option only after a resolution in terms of the notification was passed. Thereafter, the representative of the Union of temporary employees for their regularisation and regarding pension scheme was taken up with the concerned quarters and respondent No.3 issued instructions on 14.11.2011 by granting one time relaxation to exercise option regarding pension scheme upto 31.12.2011. The petitioner in terms of the notification has exercised this option. The petitioner accordingly exercised the option within the stipulated period which is accepted and he was issued GPF Account No.5072 and a contribution to existing CPF account was stopped and petitioner started contributed to the GPF account from his salary. However, after the retirement of the petitioner, he was not given pension. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP No.15266 of 2014 titled as ‘Raman Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab and others’ decided on 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-3) which was further upheld by the LPA No.2099 of 2016 titled as ‘State of Punjab and others Vs. Raman Kapoor and another’ decided on 20.07.2018. An identical controversy was considered by this Court in CWP No.18381 of 2003 titled as ‘Davinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another’ decided on 19.04.2010 (Annexure P-5) which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1192 of 2010 titled as ‘Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Vs. Davinder Singh and others’ decided on 21.05.2014 (Annexure P-6) and by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7745-7747 of 2015 titled as ‘Municipal Corporation Ludhiana Vs. Davinder Singh and others’ decided on 25.10.2017 (Annexure P-7). As such, the issue involved in the present controv