Devinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

The present writ petition has b een filed under Article 226/2 2 7 of the Co n stitution of India for the issu a nce of a writ in the nature o f Mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the PEPSU Ro a d Transport C orporation (hereinafter ‘PR T C’), to release the petitioner's retirement b enefits, namely, gratuity, leav e encashment, General Provide n t n Fund (GP F ), and pension, under the PEPSU Road Transport Corporati o Employees Pension/Gratuity and General P rovident Fund Regulations, 19 9 2 (hereinafte r referred to as 'the 1992 Regul a tions'), along with interest at t h e rate of 9% p er annum for the period of dela y .

¶16

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

2

¶18

CWP-1271 6 -2020

¶19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶20

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner j o ined the services of the PEPS U Road Tran s port Corporation (PRTC) on 1 5 .07.1991 and served as a Driv e r until his retirement on 31.10.2019. The 19 9 2 Regulations, which provide f o r pensionary benefits, came into force on 15.06.1992. As per Regulation 4 , existing e m ployees were required to exer c ise an option to be governed b y these new regulations. It is not dispute d that the petitioner, within t h e stipulated p eriod of six months, exercis e d his option by submitting t h e requisite ' O ption and Undertaking Form' on 14.12.1992 (Annexure P-2) , thereby opt i ng for the pension scheme und e r the 1992 Regulations. A cruci a l condition f o r the option to be valid was t h at the employee should not ha v e taken any a dvance from the Employer's sh a re of the Contributory Provide n t Fund (here i nafter ‘CPF’).

¶21

3. Upon retirement on 31.10.201 9 , the petitioner was not releas e d his pension, gratuity, leave encashment, an d GPF amounts. Vide letter dat e d 18.11.2019 (Annexure P-5), the Corporati o n asked him to submit releva n t documents. The petitioner complied by s u bmitting a representation dat e d 25.11.2019 (Annexure P-6), providing c o pies of his option form and a n extract fro m the official register (Annex u re P-4) which listed him as a member o f the pension scheme. Despite f urther representations, includi n g one dated 20.03.2020 (Annexure P-7), t he benefits were not release d , compelling the filing of the instant writ pet i tion.

¶22

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

CWP-1271 6 -2020

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the petiti o ners inter alia contends that t h e petitioner v alidly exercised his option for t he 1992 Pension Scheme with i n the stipulated time and as per the prescri b ed procedure. The option, on c e exercised, is final under Regulation 4 of the 1992 Regulations. T h e - respondent - Corporation's own record, spec i fically the register (Annexure P 4), confir m s his membership in the pens i on scheme. Therefore, a vest e d right to rec e ive pensionary benefits under t he 1992 Regulations crystalliz e d in his favo u r.

¶27

5. It is submitted that the re s pondent-Corporation cannot b e permitted t o take advantage of its own w rong. The failure to transfer t h e petitioner's account from the CPF scheme t o the GPF scheme under the 19 9 2 Regulation s was an internal administrativ e error and a lapse on the part o f the Corpor a tion. The petitioner, being a Driver and a field staff, cannot b e expected t o have monitored the internal ac c ounting heads of the deductio n s made from his salary. The Corporation, h aving accepted his option, w a s duty-boun d to correct its records and ensur e deductions were made under t h e correct hea d . Reliance is heavily placed o n the judgement of the Hon’b l e Supreme C ourt in Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. Ashi t Chakraborty 2023 SCC Online SC 594 a n d the judgments of this Court i n Harpal Singh v. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, 2022 (4) SCT 32 5 r and Japinder Singh Vs. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and anothe (CWP No. 32156 of 2019) .

¶28

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

4

¶30

CWP-1271 6 -2020

¶31

6. Per Contra , learned counsel f or respondents submits that t h e petitioner, b y his conduct over more than t w o decades, acquiesced to being a member of the CPF scheme. CPF deductions were continuously made fro m his salary u ntil his retirement in October 2019, and he never raised a n y n objection d uring his entire service. Furth e rmore, he actively took a lo a from his C PF for his son's marriage in September 2016. This condu c t unequivoc a lly demonstrates that he had a c cepted the CPF scheme and h a d waived any right to claim benefits under th e pension scheme.

¶32

7. In rebuttal, learned counsel fo r the petitioner submits that if a n y amount is d ue against the petitioner, then t h e same can be deducted from h i s pension.

¶33

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

¶34

8. I have heard the learned c o unsel for the parties and ha v e perused th e record with their able assista n ce. This Court is of the opini o n that the pr e sent case is squarely covered b y the judgement of the Hon’b l e Supreme Court in Calcutta State Transport Corporation (supra) , and t h e judgements of coordinate benches of this C o urt in Harpal Singh (supra) a n d Japinder Singh (supra) .

¶35

9. A Two-Judge Bench of the H o n’ble Supreme Court in Calcutt a State Transport Corporation (supra) s p eaking through Justice Raje s h Bindal has h eld that once an employee has e xercised his option, it is the du t y of the em p loyer to give effect to the sa m e. The fact that some incorre c t

¶36

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

5

¶38

CWP-1271 6 -2020

¶39

deductions were made from his salary an d he was mistakenly treated as a member o f the CPF Scheme cannot be r e lied upon to defeat his rightf u l claim. The Court categorically held that a n employee cannot be made t o suffer for t h e fault of the employer. Relev a nt paragraph of the judgement i s reproduced as under:

¶40

“ 11. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 had exercise d his right to receive pension under the 1990 Regulations in th e year 1991. Thereafter, it was the duty of the Corporation t o have given effect to the same. Merely because there wer e some wrong deductions from his salary and he was treated a s member of the CPF Scheme, cannot be permitted to be raise d as a ground to defeat his rightful claim. The pension was t o start after retirement of the respondent. When the same wa s not released to him, immediately representation was made b y him. As no response was received from the appellant, the wri t petition was filed . The argument that there are number o f similarly situated employees w ho will also stake their claim s , will not deter this Court in gr a nting the relief to the responden t, which is legitimately due to h im. Rather this argument sho w s that the Corporation was at fault in implementing the 19 9 0 Regulations in the cases of n u mber of employees though the s e were notified on 4.1.1991 an d were given retrospective effe c t from 1.4.1984. Technical obj e ctions are sought to be raise d , which are not tenable. For any fault on the part of th e Corporation, the employees cannot be made to suffer .”

¶41

(Emphasis supplie d ) 10. A coordinate Bench of this C ourt, in Harpal Singh (supra) , dealt with a similar issue where the petitioner had opted to be governed b y the 1992 R e gulations. However, from 199 4 onwards, deductions were ma d e from his s a lary and credited to the Con t ributory Provident Fund (CP F ) Scheme in s tead of the General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme under t h e 1992 Regu l ations, all without his consent o r knowledge. Upon his retireme n t

¶42

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

6

¶44

CWP-1271 6 -2020

¶45

on 31.08.2 0 15, the petitioner was infor m ed that he was entitled only t o benefits un d er the CPF Scheme and not t he 1992 Regulations, prompti n g him to im m ediately object. The responde n ts contended that the petition e r had never p reviously raised any objection regarding such deductions. Th i s Court, whil e allowing the writ petition, ma d e the following observations:

¶46

“ 7. Once after the 1992 Rules came into operation and th e options from the employees were sought as to whether the y want to apply for the pensionary benefits under the 199 2 Rules or not, and the petitioner duly opted for grant of th e pensionary benefits under the 1992 Rules, there was n o occasion with respondents to unilaterally change th e petitioner's option to the Contributory Provident Fun d Scheme. Nothing has been placed on record that th e petitioner ever requested that he wants to withdraw from th e 1992 Rules, so as to be governed by the Contributor y Provident Fund Scheme. The argument of learned counse l for the respondent that the petitioner never objected to th e same, cannot be accepted in view of the facts that th e deductions were being done from salary of the petitioner an d further, according to the petitioner, he was never informe d that the deductions are being done for the Contributor y Provident Fund Scheme rather than the General Providen t Fund Scheme as envisaged under the 1992 Rules.

¶47

8. Even otherwise, once the petitioner opted for bein g governed under the 1992 Rules, the said option can b e withdrawn by the petitioner only and that too by writte n request. In the absence of an y written request made on beha lf of the petitioner for the sam e , coupled with the stance whi c h has been taken by the petitioner that the respondents in fa c t unilaterally changed his opt i on from 1992 Rules to that o f Contributory Provident Fund S cheme and the petitioner refus e d the payments at the first insta n ce under Contributory Provide n t r Fund after his retirement, h e nce bona fide of the petition e r cannot be doubted. Therefore, once the petitioner opted fo pension under the 1992 Rules and the deductions from hi s salary were deposited in the General Provident Fund Schem e

¶48

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

7

¶50

CWP-1271 6 -2020

¶51

as envisaged under the 1992 Rules for a period of two years , the unilateral change effected by the respondents themselve s cannot be permitted and the same is totally arbitrary, illega l and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner is hel d entitled for the pensionary benefits as envisaged under th e 1992 Rules, governing the respondents-Corporation. ”

¶52

(Emphasis supplie d ) 11. The Respondents in aforemen t ioned case filed Special Leave t o Appeal (C) No. 10948 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and t h e same was dismissed vide order dated 14.07 . 2022 (Annexure P-9).

¶53

12. In the present case, the petitio n er had duly exercised his opti o n by submitt i ng the requisite Option and U n dertaking Form on 14.12.199 2 . Neverthele s s, deductions towards the CP F Scheme continued to be ma d e from his s a lary until his retirement on 3 1.10.2019. There is nothing o n record to i n dicate that the petitioner eve r submitted a written request t o withdraw f r om the 1992 Regulations, nor i s there any evidence that he w a s informed a b out the continued CPF deduct i ons despite his opting under t h e 1992 Regu l ations. Upon non-release of hi s retiral benefits after retireme n t, the petition e r promptly submitted a represe n tation. Therefore, the contenti o n of the lea rn ed counsel for the responde n t that the petitioner had nev e r objected to the deductions under the CPF Scheme is untenable. It was t h e duty of the Respondent-Corporation to giv e effect to the option exercised b y the petitioner and for any fault on the part o f the Corporation, the employ e e cannot be m ade to suffer.

¶54

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

8

CWP-1271 6 -2020

CONCLUSION

13. In view of the foregoing di s cussion, the present petition i s allowed. T h e Respondents are directed to grant the benefit of the pensi o n scheme u n der the 1992 Regulations to the petitioner and release t h e necessary r e tiral benefits within a period o f 6 weeks from the date of recei p t of certified copy of this order.

¶59

14. Pending miscellaneous appli c ations, if any, shall also sta n d

¶60

disposed o f .

¶61

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶62

October 28, 2025 P.C/Paritosh Whether speaking/reaso n ed. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶63

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sham Lal through His Lrs Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajesh Garg Vs State of Punjab and Others

S Sarwan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Smt. Usha Kant & Ors. Vs Pb.State & Ors.

Raajo Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Khushboo Khanna Alias Gudia Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.