Civil Writ Petition No. 4417 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4417 of 2010 Date of Decision: 09.08.2011 *** Jai Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The precise grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the services rendered by him on work charge basis from 1.4.1970 to 12.9.1980 were not counted towards pension. The claim of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner failed to exercise his option within the stipulated period and has not deposited the amount received by him towards employer's contribution along with interest and hence the said benefit was not extended to him. While dealing with similar situation, a Co-ordinating Bench of this Court allowed number of writ petitions, one of which was CWP No.17805 of 2009, and it has been observed as follows:- “9. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to exercise his option in terms of the Circular dated 06.08.1993 (Annexure P1) and/or subsequent Circulars dated 09.08.1994 (Annexure P2) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of Civil Writ Petition No. 4417 of 2010 2 certified copy of this order and thereafter, the respondent-Corporation shall inform the petitioner the amount of employer’s contribution towards EPF to be deposited by him along with interest within a period of one month as stipulated under the Instructions and upon receipt thereof, the petitioner shall deposit the same within a period of two months thereafter. After the receipt of amount to be deposited by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to count the work-charged service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 07.11.1968 to 16.01.1976 towards his pensionary benefits which shall, accordingly, be revised/released at the earliest. (10). Ordered accordingly.” Learned counsel for the respondents has failed to show that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the petitioner of aforesaid writ petition. In this view of the matter, the instant writ petition is allowed in the same terms as rendered in CWP No. 17805 of 2009. No costs. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 9,2011 Jiten