IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3393 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 23rd December, 2008 Jagroop Singh … Appellant Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present regular second appeal has been filed by Jagroop Singh, who was employed as Driver in PRTC Depot-II, with a prayer that he is entitled to pension, commuted pension and other benefits, which ought to have accrued to him at the time of retirement. It was further prayed that appellant plaintiff was entitled to pension on the basis of rules adopted by the respondent Corporation on 15th June, 1992. Briefly stated, it was stated that appellant plaintiff was working as Driver with the respondent Corporation and took voluntary retirement from the service on 30th November, 2000 and fulfilled all the conditions for pension and other service benefits and the gratuity which was released to him on 8th June, 2001. It has been further stated that during his service, he had given an option for pension but respondent Corporation did not accept the same and released him Contributory Provident Fund. A notice of the suit was issued. Reply was filed, wherein it was stated that the suit in the present form is not maintainable and appellant plaintiff has no locus standi Regular Second Appeal No.3393 of 2006 (O&M) to file the suit. On merits, it was stated that appellant plaintiff is not entitled to any pensionary benefit, as the plaintiff opted to be a member of Contributory Provident Fund. A notice was displayed on the notice board regarding the information to employees about giving their option for becoming members of Contributory Provident Fund or pension scheme. Appellant plaintiff opted to become a member of Contributory Provident Fund scheme and dues were already paid to him and were accepted without raising any objection. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pension and cumulated pension and other benefits on the pattern of Punjab Govt. Rules w.e.f 15/6/92? OPP 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on delayed payment @ 18 % P.A.? OPP 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? OPD 6) Relief. Appellant appeared as PW-1. Defendant Corporation examined DW-1 Raj Kumar, Senior Clerk, Office of PRTC Bathinda. Raj Kumar, who appeared as DW-1, stated that pension regulations dated 15th June, 1992 were adopted by the Corporation for implementation of pension scheme. Employee was given an option to accept either the pension scheme or the Contributory Provident Fund scheme. It has been stated by him in the cross-examination that no option was given by the appellant plaintiff to the Corporation. Document (mark ‘B’), whereby option was given by the appellant plaintiff, was shown to him but the same has been ruled out of consideration, as the plaintiff failed to prove the same. 2 Regular Second Appeal No.3393 of 2006 (O&M) Trial Court decreed the suit holding that appellant plaintiff was not specifically informed about the pension scheme, therefore, he could not submit his option and it is only at the time of retirement that he came to know that a beneficial pension scheme has been adopted by the Corporation. The suit was decreed and defendants were directed to release the pensionary benefits to the appellant plaintiff within one month from the receipt of the copy of judgment along with interest @ 9 percent from the date of suit till realization. Aggrieved against the same, Corporation had filed an appeal. The appellate Court noticed that the employee plaintiff appellant was to retire from service on 30th November, 2000, however, he took premature retirement on 6th November, 2000. The appellate court also held that though the Corporation had taken a plea that employee submitted option for availing benefit of above said rules of 1992, but no date of such option is mentioned. The appellate Court further held as under: “11) Statement of DW-1 to the effect that employees who were to opt for pensionary benefits were to submit options in that respect, failing which it was to be assumed that benefits of pension scheme not to be availed is correct because perusal of ruled 4(iii) of P.R.T.C. Employees pension/ Gratuity and provident fund rules, 1992 reveals that option given by the employees qua availing or non availing of the pensionary benefits was to be treated as final. Further as per this rule 4(iii) in case an employee failed to submit the option within specified period of six months, then it was to be deemed as if the employee not submitting option to continue to be governed by the prevailing contributory provident fund scheme. As option not shown to be submitted by respondent within six months stipulated by rule 4 of above said rules and as such in view of the deeming clause contained in rule 4(iii) it has to be inferred that respondent opted to be governed by prevailing contributory provident fund scheme as per which respondent to get contributory fund on his retirement as per rules. AS per 3 Regular Second Appeal No.3393 of 2006 (O&M) that C.P. Fund scheme the employee on retirement to get the amount of contribution made by him towards C.P. Fund with interest along with amount of equal contribution to C.P. Fund made by employees with interest. When an employee gets due amount of C.P. Fund on retirement then he is not entitled to pensionary benefits because employee cannot have benefits of both the pension and gratuity C.P. Fund scheme.” Appellate Court, relying upon the judgment of this Court rendered in ‘Executive Engineer Haryana State Electricity Board v. Dharam Singh and others’ 2005(2) RSJ 264, held that since the appellant plaintiff had availed the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund scheme, therefore, he is not entitled to claim benefit of pension scheme and hence reversed the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, present second appeal has been filed. On May 30, 2007, notice of motion was issued. On October 15, 2007, this appeal was ordered to be listed along with Civil Writ Petition No. 8052 of 1999. A bunch of writ petitions, including Civil Writ Petition No.8052 of 1999, has been decided by this Court and the main judgment has been rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.14562 of 2004 titled as ‘Jagjit Singh v. Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another’, decided on 3rd December, 2008. The judgment rendered in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra) has considered various issues and has taken into consideration judgment rendered in Dharam Singh’s case (supra) relied upon by the appellate Court below. The Court has also placed reliance upon ‘PRTC v. Balwant Singh’ 2007 (1) SCT 828. Therefore, on legal position enunciated and the facts, which are akin in the present regular second appeal, case of the plaintiff appellant is squarely covered by the 4 Regular Second Appeal No.3393 of 2006 (O&M) ratio of judgment rendered in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra). Therefore, the judgment rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.14562 of 2004 titled as ‘Jagjit Singh v. Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another’, decided on 3rd December, 2008 be read as part of the present judgment. Present regular second appeal is allowed in the same terms as in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra). [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 23, 2008 rps 5