IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13343 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.02.2010 Ram Parkash ….Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others .…Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. R.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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 ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner, who was a retiree from the Panchayat Samiti, Aur,claims pension admissible to the employees under Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Employees Pension and Provident Fund Rules, 2000. The claim of the petitioner is that he joined the service in May, 1963 and retired on 30.03.2003 having completed 40 years of service. Admittedly, by virtue of notification issued on 14.07.2000 in relation to the aforesaid rules of 2000, it was applicable to all the employees, who were working immediately before 1st July, 1999 on whole time regular basis and option for the applicability of the rules. It Civil Writ Petition No.13343 of 2008 - 2 - appears that before his retirement and before the rules had been notified, the petitioner had given letters to the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Aur on 05.10.1999 and 28.01.2000 that he did not want to get pension under the Pension Scheme. This statement was alleged to bind the petitioner when the scheme was brought into force and when his claim for pension was rejected by the Executive Officer by his communication dated 08.10.2007 that the pension papers of the petitioner had not been sent to the Government in view of his letters. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that his statement had been made in the year 1999-2000 before the notification of the scheme and hence it could not be put up against him to deny his entitlement. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer to Rule 3 of the Pension Rules that sets out the procedure for exercising of option in Form-1 so as to reach the competent authority within a period of 4 months from the date of publication of the rules in the gazette. His contention was that the rules were notified in the gazette on 14th July, 2000 and as per Rule 3, the option ought to have been exercised before 14.11.2000 and that was what he had done. The respondent denied the fact that the petitioner had exercised such an option but the petitioner has filed a copy of communication by the Executive Officer to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department dated 22.11.2000 that recites that letters of option of three employees including the petitioner had been sent to the Directorate and the letter also refers to the fact that the forms exercising option had been duly filled in and sent along with the letter. This copy of the communication filed as Annexure P-8 has the Civil Writ Petition No.13343 of 2008 - 3 - adequate proof of the fact that the petitioner had exercised the option and the petitioner was entitled to be considered for payment of pension. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he is willing to refund any amounts that had been paid to him at the time of his superannuation which by the application of the Pension Rules, he shall be liable to forfeit. 3. The respondents shall consider the communication sent by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Aur to the 2nd respondent by his letter dated 22.11.2000 and admit the petitioner to the claim for pension. The exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of 12 weeks and the respondents are at liberty to calculate the amounts that the petitioner is bound to refund which will carry interest at 9% from the date of receipt by him till repayment. The amounts calculated as pension and pensionary benefits shall similarly yield to the petitioner interest at 9% per annum from the date when they became due till date of payment. 4. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 17.02.2010 sanjeev