C.W.P. No.17243 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.17243 of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.09.2011 Hakam Rai ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner instead of E.P.F benefits. Contends that in the year 1993, the Board has framed a Policy, according to which, every employee of the Board who was a member of the E.P.F and wants to change over to the pension scheme could do so provided the share contributed by the Board towards his E.P.F is refunded with interest. In this policy, the employees who have retired from the service of the Board are also entitled to avail pensionary benefits instead of benefits of E.P.F Scheme. It is contended that the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2004. He exercised his option on 26.09.2009 (Annexure P-4). He also sent a demand notice on 04.05.2011 (Annexure C.W.P. No.17243 of 2011 2 P-5). It is further contended that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others passed in CWP No.225 of 2009, decided on 07.07.2010. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation (Annexure P-4) and demand notice (Annexure P-5) as expeditiously as possible preferably within one month from the receipt of a copy of this order. However, in case, the petitioner is found entitled for the said benefits, the same shall be released forthwith and in case, the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by passing a speaking order. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 15.09.2011 JUDGE gurpreet