CWP NO.6867 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.6867 OF 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 28.04.2008 Union of India and others .....PETITIONERS VERSUS Puran Chand and another .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr.Nitin Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 13.11.2007 (Annexure P3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh whereby an Original Application filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') was allowed. Vide the said application, the applicant prayed pensionary benefits from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.05.1980. It is the case of the applicant that just before his retirement, he suffered paralytic attack and on account of his deteriorating health he could not pursue his case for pension properly. Subsequently, he approached Pension Adalat and the matter was referred to CWP NO.6867 OF 2008 2 Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala but still the payments were not made, which led to filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal. After filing of the application, the applicant died and his son was impleaded as his legal representative. The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner on two grounds that application is barred by limitation and that Delhi Division has not been impleaded as respondent. The Tribunal treated the application to be within period of limitation. It was found that the applicant was not given any of the two options available which could entitle him to opt for the pension or for twice the amount of provident fund. Thus, a direction was issued to finalize the pension/pensionary benefits and other retiral dues within a period of four months. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the petitioner does not have any record in respect of applicant on the basis of which it can be found out whether the applicant has given any option at the relevant stage. The plea that the record is not available was not raised before the Tribunal. The only defence taken in the reply was that Delhi Division is not a party before the Tribunal. Once the applicant has been impleaded Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railways as the respondent, it was open to the said General Manager to get the record from the relevant Division for the purpose of filing of the reply. Since no such stand was taken, it is not permissible for the petitioners now to state that the record is not available. Even otherwise, two options were required to be given to an employee as per the findings recorded. The applicant was CWP NO.6867 OF 2008 3 not given any of the option either to seek pension or seek twice the amount of provident fund. In view of the said fact, the applicant has been rightly found entitled to the pensionary benefits by the Tribunal. Thus, we we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE ( MOHINDER PAL ) April 28, 2008 JUDGE jt