C.W.P No. 2320 of 2004 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 2320 of 2004 Date of decision : November 26, 2008 Atam Parkash, ...... Petitioner through Mr. K.L.Dhingra, Advocate v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondents through Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Addl.A.G.Haryana for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr.Dinesh.K.Jangra, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming that he should be granted the benefit of pension like other employees mainly on the ground that the letter containing pension scheme and granting option to the employees was never served upon him or got noted from him. By order dated 21.10.2008, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 4 had sought an adjournment to ascertain the above fact because no categoric stand in respect thereof had been taken in the written statement. C.W.P No. 2320 of 2004 (O&M) ::2:: Counsel for respondents No.2 and 4 has fairly admitted that the signatures of the petitioner do not appear on the letter, which was circulated in the office of the petitioner. I find that the controversy is squarely covered by a catena of judgments, the latest being Mahinder Singh vs Executive Engineer and another, 2006(1) RSJ 56, wherein this Court has held as follows :- “4. Both the learned counsel for the parties have very fairly conceded that the present case is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kesar Chand vs State of Punjab, 1988(5) SLR 25 and a Division Bench judgment in Darshan Singh vs Chief Accounts Officer, HSEB, CWP No.2402 of 1997, decided on 27.8.1997. Nothing has been brought on record to show that circular dated 6.8.1993 was ever brought to the notice of the petitioner. There is not even an averment in the written statement that this circular was ever got noted from him. In this situation, the relief admissible to the petitioner cannot be denied. Therefore, the petitioner's claim that the benefit of the service should be given to him towards the determination of the amount of pension, has to be sustained. However, this shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner does not claim the benefit of that period of service towards the Provident Fund. The amount deposited by the employer from the date of his appointment till his retirement along with interest shall be refunded by the petitioner. If the petitioner deposits C.W.P No. 2320 of 2004 (O&M) ::3:: this amount along with interest thereon up-to-date within two months from today, the respondents shall re- determine his pension and pay the arrears to him which may become due within two months thereafter.” It may also be noticed here that the petitioner has offered to refund the benefit of contributory provident fund with the requisite interest so as to be made eligible for the pension scheme. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to inform the petitioner as to how much money is recoverable from him within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner will refund the said amount within 15 days thereafter and within four weeks of the refund, the petitioner will be brought on the pension scheme and the arrears of pension released to him. It is, however, clarified that arrears of pension will carry the same interest as will be demanded from the petitioner. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 26 , 2008. JUDGE `kk'