IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18610 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 13, 2010. Dev Raj and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.H.S.Brar, Addl.AG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab for respondent No.3. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.H.S.Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, who is on the panel of respondent No.3 accepts notice on its behalf. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioners are employees of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. They seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to accept the options exercised by them for grant of pension and other retiral benefits after their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. It is their claim that the Punjab Municipal Corporation Employees Pension and C.W.P.No .18610 of 2010 2 General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 though were published in the Government Gazette on 29.7.1994, however, the petitioners were never informed and they did not come to know about the enforcement of these Rules. It is further alleged that as soon as the petitioners came to know, they exercised their options on 29.7.2010 and opted for the pension Scheme. It is alleged that no decision on their options has been taken so far despite the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 19.4.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.18381 of 2003 (Davinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another) (Annexure P-25) which was also filed by the similarly situated employees of the respondent- Corporation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider the options exercised by the petitioners for the grant of pension and other pensionary benefits on their superannuation in the light of the decision of this Court in Davinder Singh and others' case (supra). The appropriate decision in this regard be taken within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. October 13, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE