CWP-10530 IN TH 234 Attar Singh Union of Indi CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Consti the nature o 04.03.2020 on account o in consonanc judgment da Further prayi respondent N 1 530-2024 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o ingh VERSUS of India and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for t Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has be Constitution of India for issuance of ture of certiorari for calling record 020 (Annexure P-6) denying the bene ount of non-receipt of permission and sonance with directions issued by th nt dated 04.10.2016 (Annexure P r praying for issuance of a writ in the dent No.3 to accept the differential am NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-10530-2024 Date of Decision: February 17, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS ..Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR te for the petitioners. ate for respondents No.2 to 4. been filed under Article 226/227 ce of an appropriate writ or order in record of the impugned order dated benefit of pension on higher wages n and option submitted by petitioners by the Apex Court in RC Gupta’s re P-1) and to set aside the same. in the nature of mandamus directing tial amount from the petitioners as per 2026 ioners ondents /227 der in dated wages ioners ta’s same. ecting as per PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10530 the demand a by the Apex C 2. petitioners a judgment re 10014 of 20 Commissione wherein it w pension irres not. Respond compliance submitted the some of petit further subm 22.12.2023 informing th higher wage necessary act 3. that the petiti they have no the controve judgments 2 530-2024 and and to pay pension on higher w Apex Court in terms of RC Gupta’a Learned counsel for the petition ners are entitled to the revision of nt rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Co f 2016, R.C. Gupta and others V sioner, Employees Fund Organizati n it was held that all the employee n irrespective of the fact that such opt espondent No.1 issued instructions on ance of the aforesaid judgment (A ted their option for revision of pensio f petitioners was credited back to thei submits that petitioners had also 023 (Annexure P-7) and in response ing the petitioners that the matter wages is pending before the Hon ary action will be taken as per the outc On the other hand, learned coun e petitioners are pre-retirees of year 20 ve not admittedly exercised their opti ntroversy involved in the present ca rendered by this Court in CW her wages as per the mandate issued case (Annexure P-1). etitioners, inter alia, contends that the n of their pension based upon the e Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10013 ers Vs. Regional Provident Fund ization and others, (Annexure P-1 ployees are entitled for revision of ch option was given during service or ons on 23.03.2017 (Annexure P-2) in nt (Annexure P-1). The petitioners pension and the amount deposited by to their saving bank. Learned counsel also submitted representation dated sponse thereof a reply was received atter regarding grant of pension on e Hon’ble Supreme Court and the e outcome of petition. d counsel for the respondents submits 2014 and prior to their retirement ir option to join the EPS Scheme and ent case is squarely covered by the CWP-35154-2024 and connected issued the n the 013- und 1) on of ice or ) in ioners ted by unsel dated eived on on d the bmits ement and y the cted PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10530 cases, titled a decided on 2 others Versu relevant porti 4. ad idem that No.34234 of India and ot disposed of i placed upon t 5. case (supra) LPA-3764-20 others, decid 3 530-2024 titled as Om Parkash and others Vers d on 24.09.2025 and CWP-32035- ersus Union of India and others t portion thereof reads as under:- 4. “Having heard the learn transpires that the petitioners in 01.09.2014 without exercising paragraph 11(3). The law in integra and has been settled by Court in ‘Employees Provident Kumar B’ 2022 INSC 11 Employees’ Association (Prea Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).97-2025 5. In view of the disc writ petition is hereby dismissed (supra).” After arguing for sometime, lea that similar issue has also been d 4 of 2014, titled as Baru Ram Sha d others, decided on 05.02.2026 ed of in terms of the said judgment, i upon the judgment passed in Ram Nat Moreover, the judgment passed pra), has also been upheld by a D 2025, titled as Ram Nath and oth , decided on 24.12.2025. Versus Union of India and others, -2025, titled as Ram Nath and thers, decided on 30.10.2025. The learned counsel for the parties, it rs in the present case retired before ising the stipulated option under in this regard is no longer res d by this Court and Hon’ble Apex ident Fund Organization Vs. Sunil 1171 and ‘Powergrid Retired Prea) Vs. Union of India’ Writ 2025. discussion above, the present civil issed in terms of Om Parkash’s case , learned counsel for the parties are been decided by this Court in CWP Sharma and others Vs. Union of 026 and the present petition may be , in which reliance has also been Nath’s case (supra). passed by this Court in Ram Nath’s y a Division Bench of this Court in others Versus Union of India and ers, and . The s, it fore nder res pex unil tired Writ civil case es are WP n of ay be been ’s urt in and PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10530 6. parties, the p case (supra) February 17 P.C 4 530-2024 In view of the above statement m , the present petition is dismissed in pra) so also, the pending application( 17, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : ment made by learned counsel for the ed in terms of Baru Ram Sharma’s cation(s), if any. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No or the a’s RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document