1

CWP-7703-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-770 3-2022

Kamaljeet Singh

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

..Respondents

Reserved on: 07.04.2026

Pronounced on: 19.05.2026

Uploaded on:19.05.2026

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No

Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present : Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG Punjab-State.

Mr. D.K. Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of

certiorari for quashing of impugned orders dated 27.10.2021 and

02.12.2021 (Annexures P-10 and P-11, respectively) whereby his claim for

pension and other pensionary benefits was rejected. Further praying for

issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to

release the pension and other pensionary benefits to petitioner from the date

2

CWP-7703-2022

of his superannuation i.e. from 30.06.2016 along with interest at the rate of

12% per annum.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The petitioner was appointed with respondent No.3- Punjab

Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter ‘Board’) as a Rigman on

09.10.1980, though the designation was changed to ‘Pump Operator,’

subsequently. His services were regularised vide order dated 29.02.1991

(w.e.f. 06.12.1990). He was also promoted to the post of Junior Technician.

3. Respondent No.2-Municipal Council, Kharar (here inafter’

Council’) passed a resolution dated 06.05.1998 (Annexure P-1) whereby the

maintenance work carried out by the Board was taken over by the Council.

Thereafter, vide resolution dated 30.05.1998 (Annexure P-2), the permanent

employees of the Board, including the petitioner, forming a part of the

maintenance staff, were also absorbed by the Council. The same was also

sanctioned by Director, Local Bodies on 08.10.1998 (Annexure P-3).

Accordingly, the petitioner started working for the respondent-Council

w.e.f. 24.04.1998, on a regular pay scale.

4. The petitioner retired from the respondent-Coun cil on

30.06.2016, upon attaining the age of superannuation. However, he was not

granted any pension or pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner moved several representation but to no effect. He also served a

legal notice dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P-8) upon the respondent-Council

agitating his claim. The petitioner had also filed a civil suit, however, it was

3

CWP-7703-2022

dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.05.2021 (Annexure P-7) passed

by learned Civil Judge. He further moved this Court by filing CWP

No.17705 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2021

(Annexure P-9) with a direction to decide the legal notice (Annexure P-8).

In compliance with the same, Executive Officer of the respondent-Council

passed an impugned speaking order dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure P-10)

denying the claim of the petitioner. This order was subsequently amended

and impugned speaking order dated 02.12.2021 (Annexure P-11) was passed

by the Executive Officer vide which the claim of the petitioner for pension

and pensionary benefits was denied albeit for different reasons than those

recorded in order dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure P-10).

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner

worked with the respondent-Board till 28.04.1998. Thereafter, he was duly

absorbed in the respondent-Council vide resolution No.29 dated 30.05.1998

(Annexure P-3). The said decision also received sanction of the Director,

Department of Local Government on 08.10.1998 (Annexure P-3). However,

in spite of rendering a total service of 34 years 08 months and 20 days, the

claim of the petitioner for pension and pensionary benefits has been denied

by the respondent-Council. The service rendered by the petitioner in the

respondent-Board deserves to be counted towards qualifying service, in

terms of Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 1994. He further submitted that initially,

vide impugned order dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure P-10), the claim of the

4

CWP-7703-2022

petitioner was denied stating had not exercised the option or made the

necessary contributions, as necessitated by the Punjab Municipal Employees

Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 (hereinafter ‘Rules of

1994’), to be entitled to pension from the respondent-Council. Surprisingly,

two months later, an order dated 02.12.2021 (Annexure P-11) is passed,

amending order dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure P-10), whereby the claim of

the petitioner was still denied, however, for the reason that he is an

employee of the respondent-Board and not the respondent-Council, as he

had made contributions to the Board towards the CPF.

6. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner has been recognised

as an employee of the respondent-Council since his absorption in the year

1998. Moreover, the respondent-Board (Annexure P-4) transferred the CPF

amount with respect to the petitioner, to the respondent-Council, as the

petitioner was now employed with the Council, as evidenced by Annexures

P-4 and P-5. In fact, the said amount was further transferred to the account

of the petitioner vide cheque dated 29.02.2012 by the respondent-Council.

7. Further still, the Rules of 1994 came into force in the year 1990

and as per Rule 1(3)(i) thereof, these Rules shall automatically apply on

those hired on or after 01.04.1990. Since the petitioner joined the service of

the respondent-Council in the year 1998, he did not need to exercise an

option to be covered by Rules of 1994. As such, he cannot be denied

pension and pensionary benefits for a failure to indicate option. Further, the

respondent-Board had transferred the CPF amount accrued to the petitioner,

5

CWP-7703-2022

to the respondent-Council. Thus, it was the responsibility of the respondent-

Council to make the necessary changes and grant service benefits to the

petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation for grant

of pension and other retiral benefits as the respondent-Council is a

pensionary establishment. However, the respondent-Council neither

informed the petitioner regarding the need to exercise an option, nor did it

serve any demand notice upon him to make the requisite contributions,

rather the CPF amount was transferred to his account vide cheque dated

29.02.2012. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to refund

the amount pertaining to the contribution of the employer in the CPF.

8. Per contra learned counsel for respondent-Council submits that

the petitioner retired in the year 2016 and only agitated his claim for pension

and pensionary benefits 05 years later in the year 2021 by serving a legal

notice. Thus, the petitioner has not approached this Court in a timely manner

and on this ground alone, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

Further, the petitioner is the employee of the respondent-Board as he

deposited the requisite amount towards CPF with it. Accordingly, the

petitioner will be covered by the applicable service rules upon the

respondent-Board, which do not provide for pension. Also, the CPF amount

has already been released to the petitioner, which he accepted without

protest. In doing so, he has waived off his rights towards receiving pension

form the respondent-Council. Learned counsel further argued that the

petitioner has anyway not exercised an option to be covered by the Rules of

6

CWP-7703-2022

1994, as such, he has no right to claim any pension or pensionary benefits

from the respondent-Council. Lastly, he submitted that as per letter

no.17/2/80-1FPIII/9485 dated 14.05.1986 mentioned under Rule 3.17A

Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II requires that an option be exercised

for pension within 01 year of absorption and CPF amount with interest be

transferred to the new organisation. Since the petitioner has done neither,

the respondent-Council is not liable to provide pension and pensionary

benefits to him.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and 4-

Board submits that the respondent-Board is a non-pensionary establishment

and no relief has been claimed from it. Further still, Annexures P-1 to P-5

make it evident beyond doubt that the petitioner is the employee of the

respondent-Council.

OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing

the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner was initially hired as a

Rigman with the respondent-Board on 09.10.1980 and his services were

regularised on 29.02.1991, w.e.f. 06.12.1990. Subsequently, the

maintenance work undertaken by the respondent-Board was taken over by

the respondent-Council vide resolution No.14 dated 06.05.1998 (Annexure

P-1). Another resolution bearing No.29 dated 30.05.1998 (Annexure P-2)

was passed by the respondent-Council whereby the petitioner, amongst other

permanent staff, were also absorbed from the respondent-Board. A perusal

7

CWP-7703-2022

of letter dated 08.01.1998 (Annexure P-3) sent by the Additional Director

(J), Directorate, Local Government to the Executive Officer of the

respondent-Council clearly indicates that salary of 03 permanent employees,

including the petitioner, was duly sanctioned. Furthermore, the letters dated

03.04.2006 (Annexure P-4) and dated 27.08.2007 (Annexure P-5) sent to the

Executive Officer by the respondent-Board clearly indicates that the

petitioner was considered to be an employee of the respondent-Council and

accordingly, Rs.1,66,234/- on account of CPF of the petitioner was released

to the Council. As such, there is nothing on the record to substantiate the

stand taken by the respondent-Council that the petitioner is not its employee.

11. Further still, the argument of the respondent-Council regarding

failure of the petitioner to exercise option is liable to be rejected. The

relevant provisions of the Rules of 1994 are reproduced below:

“Rule 1. Short title, commencement and application.

xxx xxx xxx

(3) They shall-apply to the employees of the Committees-

(i) who are appointed on or after the first day of April, 1990

on whole time regular basis; and

(ii) who were working immediately before the first day of April,

1990 on whole time regular basis and opt for these rules.

Provided that the employees who were working immediately

before the first, day of April, 1990 and who retired during the period

between the first day of April, 1990 and the date of publication of

these rules in the Official Gazette, shall have the option to opt for

these rules within a period of four months from the date of publication

of these rules, subject to the condition that they shall have to refund

the Committee's contribution made towards their Contributory

Provident Fund including interest thereon received by them, together

with simple interest on the whole amount at the rate often per cent per

annum from the date of withdrawal to the date of repayment.

8

CWP-7703-2022

(4) They shall not apply to the employees, who,

(a) opt out of these rules;

(b) are members of All India Service or the Punjab Civil

Service;

(c) are paid out of contingencies;

(d) are work-charged employees;

(e) are employed after superannuation;

(f) are employed on contract basis, except when the contract

provides otherwise; and

(g) are specifically excluded wholly or partly from the

operation of these rules

Rule 2. Definitions.

xxx xxx xxx

(j) 'Qualifying service' means the service rendered under a

committee for which an employee is paid from the municipal

fund and shall include any service rendered under the

Government of Punjab, an Improvement Trust, a Corporation

or any other Public Sector Undertaking immediately before

joining the service

Rule 3. Exercise of Option.

(1) The option under clause (ii) of sub-rule (3) of rule 1 to elect to be

governed by these rules, shall be exercised in the Form appended to

these rules so as to reach the competent authority within a period of

four months from the date of publication of these rules in the Official

Gazette :

Provided that

(a) in the case of an employee who on the date of

publication of these rules was on leave,shall be exercised

within a period of four months from the date of joining

his duty after returning from leave;

(b) where an employee is under suspension on that date,

the option shall be exercised within a period of four

months from the date of his returning to duty, and

(c) in case of an employee who dies without exercising

his option with the stipulated period, he shall be deemed

to have opted for these rules.

9

CWP-7703-2022

(2) The employees, who opt for these rules, shall cease to avail the

benefit of Contributory Provident Fund and the employees who opt

out of these rules, shall continue to avail the benefit of Contributory

Provident Fund.”

(emphasis added)

12. Admittedly, the petitioner was a regular employee of the

respondent-Board. Further, he joined the respondent-Council in the year

1998, long after the Rules of 1994 had came into force. As such, by virtue of

Rule 1(3)(i), these Rules ought to apply automatically to the petitioner, i.e.

without any requirement for exercising an option. Notably, Rule 1(3)(ii)

clarifies that only the employees who were working with a Municipal

Committee prior to 01.04.1990 were required indicate their preference

regarding being governed by the Rules of 1994.

13. This Court was faced with a similar controversy in CWP

No.23325 of 2021 titled as Jatinder Pal Singh Grewal vs. PEPSU Road

Transport Corporation decided on 05.02.2026, where Rules pari materia to

the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension/Gratuity &

General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992 were analysed with respect to

grant of option. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced below:

“13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record with their able assistance. The seminal issue that

requires to be adjudicated by this Court is whether the petitioner,

initially appointed on an ad hoc basis prior to the enforcement of the

1992 Regulations (15.06.1992) but regularized subsequent thereto,

falls within the ambit of Clause 3(1)(i) as a fresh entrant entitled to

automatic coverage, or is governed by Clause 3(1)(ii), thereby

necessitating a positive exercise of option within the prescribed

period.

10

CWP-7703-2022

14. At this juncture, this Court considers it apposite to refer

to the relevant provisions of the 1992 Regulations, which are

reproduced hereunder:

“1. Short title and commencement: These Regulations shall be

called the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees

Pension/Gratuity & General Provident Fund Regulations,

1992, hereinafter called as 'Regulations':-

(i) These shall come into force with immediate effect from

15.06.1992, the date of issue.

xx xx

xx

3. Application:

(1) These regulations shall apply to the employees of the

PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, who:

(i) were/are appointed on or after the date of issue of

Regulations on whole-time and regular basis; and

(ii) were working immediately before the date of issue

of Regulations and opt for these regulations.

(2) These regulations shall not apply to the employees, who;

(a) Opt out of these regulations.

(b) Are on deputation with the corporation.

(c) Are paid out of contingencies.

(d) Are work charged employees.

(e) Are employed on contract basis, except when the

contract provides otherwise.

(f) Are re-employed after superannuation.

(g) Are specifically excluded wholly or partly from the

operation of these regulations; and

(h) Opt for the P.R.T.C. Employees Pension/Gratuity

and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992, but

failed to refund the amount of advance taken out of the

Employer's share of the contributory Provident Fund

alongwith interest thereon within the stipulated period.

11

CWP-7703-2022

4. Exercise of Option: The option under clause (ii) of the sub-

rule (1) of Regulation 3 shall be exercised in duplicate in

writing in Form-1 so as to reach the Managing Director as

forwarded by General Manager in case of depots and

Administrative Officer in the case of headquarter with his

counter- signatures within a period of six months from the date

of issue of these Regulations.”

(Emphasis added)

15. A perusal of Clause 3(1) of the 1992 Regulations reveals

that the applicability of the Pension Scheme is bifurcated into two

distinct categories of employees:

a. First, under Clause 3(1)(i), the regulations apply to those

who were or are appointed on or after the date of issue of the

Regulations on a whole-time and regular basis.

b. Second, under Clause 3(1)(ii), they apply to those who

were working immediately before the date of issue of the

Regulations and specifically opt for them.

c.

16. As per Clause 1(i), these Regulations came into force

with immediate effect from 15.06.1992. Further, Clause 4 expressly

mandates that the requirement to exercise a positive option is

restricted solely to the second category of employees identified under

Clause 3(1)(ii), i.e., those “working immediately before the date of

issue of Regulations.” Conversely, Clause 3(2) identifies specific

classes of employees to whom these regulations do not apply, which

includes those who opt out of the regulations, work-charged

employees, and those employed on a contract basis, unless the

contract specifically provides otherwise.

17. This Court is of the considered view that the

aforementioned provisions must be harmoniously construed to give

effect to the statutory intent. Upon such construction, it becomes

evident that since Clause 3(2) expressly excludes work-charged and

contractual employees from the ambit of the Pension Scheme, the

phrase “working immediately before the date of issue of Regulations”

in Clause 3(1)(ii) must be interpreted to mean “working on a whole-

time and regular basis immediately before the date of issue of

Regulations.”

12

CWP-7703-2022

18. Thus, in light of the above and subject to the other

provisions of the 1992 Regulations, the following legal position

emerges:

a. Employees who were or are appointed on or after the

date of issuance of the Regulations (15.06.1992) on a whole-time

and regular basis stand automatically covered by the Pension

Scheme. Such employees are not required to exercise any option

and are entitled to the benefits of the GPF scheme as a matter of

right.

b. Employees who were already working on a whole-time

and regular basis immediately before 15.06.1992, are required

to positively opt for the 1992 Regulations as per Clause 4. Upon

exercising such an option, they are further required to refund any

advance taken from the Employer’s share of the Contributory

Provident Fund, along with interest, within the stipulated

timeframe.

c. Employees engaged on a work-charged or contractual

basis (unless provided otherwise by contract), i.e., non-regular

employees, are expressly excluded from the purview of the 1992

Regulations. For such employees, two scenarios may arise:

i.Regularization Prior to 15.06.1992: If such employees

were regularized before the date of issuance of the

Regulations, they fall under the ambit of Clause 3(1)(ii).

Consequently, they must positively exercise an option to

be covered under the Pension Scheme. Failure to do so

within the prescribed period would result in their

continued coverage under the CPF scheme.

ii.Regularization After 15.06.1992: If such employees are

regularized after the date of issuance of the Regulations,

they are governed by Clause 3(1)(i). In this situation, they

are treated as fresh entrants on a regular basis and

automatically stand covered by the 1992 Regulations

without the need to exercise any option.

19. Applying the aforementioned legal principles to

the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner

was initially appointed on an ad hoc basis as a Junior Engineer

(Civil) on 16.01.1992 (Annexure P-1). He continued to serve in

this capacity through successive extensions dated 10.04.1992,

10.07.1992, and 23.10.1992. On the date the 1992 Regulations

13

CWP-7703-2022

came into force (15.06.1992), the petitioner was serving as an

ad hoc employee. At that stage, by virtue of Clause 3(2), the

petitioner was outside the ambit of the 1992 Regulations. As he

was not a “whole-time and regular” employee on 15.06.1992,

there was no legal occasion or requirement for him to exercise

an option under Clause 3(1)(ii).

20. The petitioner’s status shifted only when the respondent-

Corporation issued a fresh appointment order on a regular basis on

28.12.1992 (Annexure P-6). His services were subsequently

regularized w.e.f. 28.06.1993 vide office order dated 08.06.1994

(Annexure P-7). Since his regularization occurred after the 1992

Regulations were already in force, this Court is of the considered

view that the petitioner falls squarely within the ambit of Clause

3(1)(i). As a fresh entrant into regular service, he stood automatically

covered by the Pension Scheme, and the requirement to exercise a

positive option was not applicable to him. This conclusion is further

reinforced by the language of the regularization order dated

28.12.1992 (Annexure P-6), which expressly notes that the petitioner

shall be understood as a new entrant in the service of PRTC for all

intents and purposes. Such a designation confirms that the petitioner

must be treated as a new appointee under Clause 3(1)(i) rather than

an existing regular employee under Clause 3(1)(ii). Relevant portion

of the order dated 28.12.1992 (Annexure P-6) is reproduced as under:

“Shri Jatinder pal Singh s/o Sh. Bhajan Singh is hereby

appointed as Junior Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-40-

2000-50-2400-60-2700-75- 3000-100-3200 plus usual

allowances as admissible from time to time, with immediate

effect, subject to the following conditions:-

xx xx

xx

7. If he is at present employed in Central/S. Govt./Autonomous

Body etc., he will have to left his present post before joining the

PRTC. He should be clearly understood that he will be as new

entrant in the service of the PRTC for all intents and

purposes.” (Emphasis added)”

14. The petitioner was absorbed in the respondent-Council in the

year 1998 vide resolution dated 30.05.1998 (Annexure P-2), duly sanctioned

14

CWP-7703-2022

by the Director, Local Bodies, and retired on 30.06.2016, after rendering

over 18 years of service. In that context, it is rather obscure for the

respondent-Council to now take a stand that the petitioner was never their

employee, especially in face of considerable documentary evidence stating

otherwise.

15. On that note, this Court cannot let the act and conduct of the

Executive Officer of the respondent-Council in passing two speaking orders

(Annexure P-10 and P-11, respectively) deciding the legal notice (Annexure

P-8), go unchecked. Initially, the claim of the petitioner for pension and

pensionary benefits was rejected citing his failure to exercise an option or

deposit contribution, in terms of the Rules of 1994. However, for reasons

best known to the Executive Officer, the order (Annexure P-10) was

amended vide order dated 02.12.2021 (Annexure P-11) to state that the

petitioner has been denied pensionary benefits since he is not an employee

of the respondent-Council. Both the orders (Annexures P-10 and P-11) were

passed by the Executive Officer, and are merely 02 months apart. Such

conduct not only indicates non application of mind but also a lack of

knowledge with respect to the functioning of a State instrumentality. An

order cannot be modified at will, especially when it causes such severe civil

consequences. As such, existence of malice aside, there is no justification in

passing two orders on the same issue.

15

CWP-7703-2022

CONCLUSION

16. A perusal of Para 7 of Annexure P-10 indicates that the

petitioner has already been granted all the retiral dues for the service

rendered with the respondent-Council in terms of resolution No.81 dated

15.03.2016. As such, the surviving grievance of the petitioner only pertains

to pension. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned

orders dated 27.10.2021 and 02.12.2021 (Annexures P-10 and P-11,

respectively) are hereby set aside. The respondent-Council is directed to take

into account the entire service rendered by the petitioner as qualifying

service for the purpose of pension, in terms of memo no. Acctt-7-DCFA-

DLG-05/3445-3480 dated 02.12.2005 of the Directorate of Local

Government, Punjab. Further, the respondent-Council shall also intimate the

petitioner of the specific amount he needs to deposit with the Council with

respect to the CPF availed by him already, in order to be granted pension

and other pensionary benefits. The same shall be done within 04 weeks of

receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner also be provided a

reasonable time to deposit the requisite amount. Upon receipt of such

amount, the respondent-Council shall release and arrears thereof, to the

petitioner, however, without any interest thereon.

16

CWP-7703-2022

17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stands

disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

19.05.2026

Puneet Chawla

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No

Whether reportable. : Yes/No