HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13892 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.03.2011 **** Dropati . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Ms. Jarnail Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was a Safai Karamchari/Sweeper in the Municipal Council, Fazilka who served on regular basis w.e.f. 27.01.1984 till she retired w.e.f. 31.05.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. She has been denied retiral benefits on the plea that she was “……asked to put thumb mark on a form by the official of MC Fazilka in the year 1994 itself, rather the petitioner herself declared and accepted that she is not interested in taking the pension benefit but put her thumb mark on the form in the presence of several other employees and officials of the CWP No.13892 of 2010.doc - 2 – Municipal Council….”, as is evident from the averments made in para 4 of the reply filed by the third respondent. (2). Somewhat similar stand has been taken by the learned State counsel representing respondents No.1&2 on the strength of the record and he contends that the petitioner did not opt for the Pension Scheme. The petitioner is admittedly an illiterate woman who does not know how to write or sign. In a similar situation, a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Soma v. State of Punjab & Anr. (CWP No.3827 of 2004) decided on 28.07.2005 held as follows:- Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is an illiterate lady. She had thumb-marked the necessary proforma for exercising option for pension and other retiral benefits under the 1994 rules, on the asking of the officials of respondent No.2. Even thereafter the petitioner had been consistently representing to the respondent to grant her pensionary benefits under the 1994 rules, but no reply was given by the respondent nor she was ever informed in regard to her option having been exercised otherwise. CWP No.13892 of 2010.doc - 3 – After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record, we are of the view that this writ petition, deserves to be allowed. It is the case of the petitioner that she had specifically opted for availing pensionary benefits under the 1994 rules. In para 7 of the writ petition, it has been specifically averred that petitioner requested the respondents on several occasions to grant her pensionary benefits. In reply to para 7, along with the respondent acknowledges the factum of requests made by the petitioner, yet nothing has been stated as what timely steps were taken to redress the grievance of the illiterate employee nor has anything been stated that the petitioner was informed of the factual position. Had the petitioner been informed in time of actual and factual position, she might have represented about furnishing option by her.” (3). The matter was taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP by the State Government which was also declined. (4). In my considered view the reasons assigned by this Court in Smt. Soma’s case (supra) are applicable mutatis mutandis in the petitioner’s case as well. (5). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner CWP No.13892 of 2010.doc - 4 – to exercise her option under the 1994 Rules for the grant of pension subject to her refund of the Provident Fund amount etc., if any, received by her along with interest and upon deposit thereof, the respondents shall release pension to her within one month. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 14.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge