CM-3390-LPA-2024 IN/AND LPA No. 1432 of 2024 (O&M) -1- 203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-3390-LPA-2024 IN/AND LPA No. 1432 of 2024 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 01.07.2026 SURJIT SINGH ......APPELLANT Vs. PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NABHA ROAD, PATIALA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTION .........RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Preet Agroa, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(ORAL) CM-3390-LPA-2024 (i) Prayer in the present application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC, is for condonation of a delay of 819 days in filing the accompanying appeal. (ii) Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the delay of 819 days in filing the accompanying appeal is hereby condoned. (iii) CM stands disposed of. LPA No. 1432 of 2024 (O&M) 1. The appellant has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal NITIN 2026.07.06 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-3390-LPA-2024 IN/AND LPA No. 1432 of 2024 (O&M) -2- challenging the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the claim for grant of pension has been declined. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the said issue came up in a bunch of petitions, which were decided along with CWP No. 4085 of 2009, titled as Sohan Lal vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and others , decided on 13.05.2019, wherein a finding was recorded that wherever the GPF of an employee was being deducted, either on his option or even without any option having been exercised, such employee would be entitled to pensionary benefits. However, despite the said precedent, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere only on the ground that the pensionary benefits had been availed by the appellant without raising any objection. 2.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, even as of now, no pensionary benefit, except leave encashment, has been availed by the appellant and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not only factually incorrect but is also contrary to the view taken by the co-ordinate Bench in Sohan Lal's case (supra), wherein similarly situated employees, whose GPF was being deducted during service, were granted the benefit of pension. 2.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the judgment in Sohan Lal's case (supra) has already been upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No. 109 of 2020. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute the fact that employees whose GPF was being deducted, despite there being no option exercised by them, have been held entitled to the NITIN 2026.07.06 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-3390-LPA-2024 IN/AND LPA No. 1432 of 2024 (O&M) -3- benefit of pension and such order already stands implemented by the respondent Corporation. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully. 5. It may be noticed that the issue regarding entitlement to pension was decided by the learned Single Judge [(one of us sitting singly) Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.] while deciding Sohan Lal (supra), wherein the following observations were made:- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx “Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that even otherwise, the action of the respondents in declining the benefit of the 1992 Regulations to the petitioner either on the ground that he has not opted or on the ground that he has not refunded/repaid the amount which he had taken as a loan by treating him ineligible keeping in view the conditions of Clause 3 of the 1992 Regulations is discriminatory as the personnel, who even according to the respondents did not apply under the 1992 Regulations, have been granted the benefit of pension. Three instances have been given by the counsel for the petitioner, one of them is Sh. Harjinder Singh, driver F 199. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Annexure P-18, which is a noting wherein the case of Sh. Harjinder Singh has been discussed by the respondents for the grant of pension. In respect of Harjinder Singh, counsel for the respondents had accepted that there was no pension form available on the file and it can be safely presumed that he had not opted for the Regulations but right from the day one, his benefits under the Pension Regulations of 1992 were deducted. This was done for the reason that there was a list which was prepared by the respondent- Corporation of the employees who were to be covered under the CPF Scheme. In the list of employees, who were to be NITIN 2026.07.06 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-3390-LPA-2024 IN/AND LPA No. 1432 of 2024 (O&M) -4- treated under CPF scheme were those employees, who had either not opted for or declined to opt for the pension Regulations of 1992. Name of Sh. Harjinder Singh was not mentioned in the said CPF Scheme and, therefore, his deductions were being done regularly by treating him as the member of the 1992 Regulations. The said Harjinder Singh unfortunately died on 23.10.2010 while in service and, therefore, keeping in view the fact that there was some confusion that even though there was no pension form available but as all deductions were made as required under the 1992 Regulations right from the day one, the competent authority decided to give the pensionary benefits to the family of the deceased by not raising any objection and, therefore, the claim of petitioners that they are similarly situated as Sh. Harjinder Singh, is liable to be rejected. I am agreeable with the explanation which has been given by the counsel for the respondents to grant the pensionary benefits to family of Sh. Harjinder Singh, who unfortunately died during the service career. Rightly or wrongly, Sh.Harjinder Singh was being treated as a Member of the 1992 Regulations and also his benefits were being deducted right from the day one as required under the 1992 Regulations. Hence, petitioner cannot claim parity with Sh. Harjinder Singh so as to claim the benefit under 1992 Regulations. Counsel for the petitioner has also given the names of Sh. Bachitter Singh, Sh. Sardol Singh, Sh. Surjit Singh and Sh. Charan Singh. Counsel for the respondents states that though the pension forms of these employees are not available on record but the deductions were being made from them right from the day one under the 1992 Regulations as in the case of Sh. Harjinder Singh and their names never figured in the list of the employees, who were to be treated under CPF Scheme and, therefore, these employees were also similar as Harjinder Singh, who had been granted the benefit and the NITIN 2026.07.06 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-3390-LPA-2024 IN/AND LPA No. 1432 of 2024 (O&M) -5- petitioner cannot claim themselves similar to the above mentioned employees as in the case of the petitioner, he had not fulfilled the requirements of submitting the options coupled with no deduction being made from them at any given point of time during their service career or thereafter under the 1992 Regulations. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim himself to be similarly situated as the above mentioned employees. The explanation which has been given by the counsel for the respondents has merit. In the case of the petitioner, no deduction was ever made under the 1992 Regulations and they were never treated as part of the pension scheme of 1992 whereas the employees, whose description has been noted above, were treated a part of the pension scheme of 1992, though no option form is available by which they had opted for the scheme. Once the deductions were made from these employees during their service career under 1992 Regulations, they were rightly granted the benefit of pension by treating them eligible under the 1992 Regulations. The cases of the petitioners are not similar to those employees so as to claim discrimination for the grant of benefit under the 1992 Regulations.” xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 6. Once, in the year 2019, the said view was taken by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the stand adopted by the respondent- Corporation, the denial of the same benefit by the learned Single Judge in the present case to the appellant is contrary to the respondent-Corporation's own stand. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute the aforesaid finding in Sohan Lal’s case (supra) which have not only been upheld by the Division Bench but have also been implemented in respect of other similarly situated employees. NITIN 2026.07.06 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-3390-LPA-2024 IN/AND LPA No. 1432 of 2024 (O&M) -6- 8. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent is that there is an ambiguity with regard to certain employees whose GPF was being deducted as to whether they had exercised any option or not, whereas, in the present case, it is an admitted position that the appellant had not exercised any such option. 9. It may be noticed that once it has been held that an employee is entitled to pensionary benefits on the ground that GPF was being deducted, irrespective of whether he had exercised any option for the pension scheme or not, the mere fact that the appellant had not applied for or exercised any option for the pension scheme would not render him ineligible. Once the respondent-Corporation continued to deduct GPF throughout the appellant's service career despite no option having been exercised by him, the respondent treated the appellant having been opted for pension scheme, the appellant has to be treated as having been covered under the pension scheme and, consequently, entitled to the grant of pension. 10. Keeping in view the above, the present appeal stands allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appellant is held entitled to the grant of pensionary benefits in terms of the GPF deductions made during his service. 11. The respondents are directed to calculate the pensionary benefits admissible to the appellant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and release the same within a further period of four weeks. Since the respondents had deducted GPF from the appellant throughout his service, thereby treating him as a NITIN 2026.07.06 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-3390-LPA-2024 IN/AND LPA No. 1432 of 2024 (O&M) -7- member of the pension scheme, the appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment. 12. It may also be noticed that there is no delay in claiming pensionary benefits in view of the settled principle of law laid down in Civil Appeal No. 4100 of 2022 [Shri M.L. Patil (deceased) through LRs vs. The State of Goa and another], decided on 20.05.2022 and, therefore, the appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE JULY 01, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No NITIN 2026.07.06 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document