RSA-4495-2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4495-2001 (O&M) Reserved on : 27.02.2025 Pronounced on: 04.03.2025 Kuldip Singh and others ......Appellants Vs. Punjabi University, Patiala and others ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Gurnam Kaur Turka, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate, for Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), whereby the civil suit filed by the mother of the appellants for entitlement to the full pension to her deceased husband Narain Singh with effect from 01.09.1990 to 25.08.1992, was dismissed. Further challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 passed by learned trial Court, was also dismissed. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.03.11 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4495-2001 (O&M) -2- 2. The brief facts of the case are that Narain Singh (since deceased) father of the appellants was appointed as Morter Mate on work- charge basis on 05.09.1967 in the respondent-University. His services were lateron regularized and he retired from service on 31.08.1990. Narain Singh expired on 25.08.1992. Respondent-University issued a notification in the year 1992, whereby, the services of employees of the respondent-University were converted to pensionable service. One of the conditions under the pension scheme as mentioned in the notification of the year 1992 was that the amount of Contributory Provident Fund along with interest was to be returned to the respondent-University. Accordingly, the amount of Contributory Provident Fund, University share along with interest was deposited by the mother of the appellants, as per requirement under the rules. The mother of the appellants was granted family pension with effect from 26.08.1992, whereas as per the notification issued by the respondent- University and the service rules applicable to the employees, the mother of the appellants was entitled to pension with effect from 01.09.1990. Since to the representation filed by the mother of the appellants asking for pension with effect from 01.09.1990, as per notification of the year 1992, no response was given by the respondent-University, therefore, the mother of the appellants filed a civil suit on 09.04.1997. The same was dismissed on the ground of limitation by the learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999. The appellant challenged the same before the learned First Appellate Court, which vide its judgment and decree dated VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.03.11 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4495-2001 (O&M) -3- 25.07.2001, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that though both the Courts below have held mother of the appellants entitled to the pension with effect from 01.09.1990, still on the ground of limitation, the civil suit as well as appeal filed by the mother of the appellants were dismissed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the civil suit filed by the mother of the appellants and the appeal filed by them have rightly been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of the case. 6. A perusal of the record shows that undisputedly, the notification of the year 1992, whereby, the services of the employees of the respondent- University were converted to pensionable, was issued by the respondent- University. 7. Further, the deceased Narain Singh could not opt for, in response to the notification issued in the year 1992. 8. However, vide notification dated 12.07.1995, special chance was given by the respondent-University to the employees, who could not opt for pension. 9. Since Narain Singh, father of the appellants, expired on 25.08.1992, the mother of the appellants, who was eligible for family pension opted for University Pension Scheme on 07.09.1995 and as per its VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.03.11 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4495-2001 (O&M) -4- condition, the amount of Contributory Provident Fund, University share along with interest was deposited by the mother of the appellants, as per requirement under the rules. 10. It would be relevant to reproduce the notification dated 12.07.1995 as under:- Punjabi University Patiala. No. 9309-9439/Pension Dated 12.7.1995 Heads University Teaching/Research/Non-teaching Departments and Branch Officers, Punjabi University, Patiala. Sub : Special Chance to the university employees for providing option for pension from 1.4.1990. Sir/Madam, Your kind attention is invited to letter No. 8913-9042 dt. 28.7.92/6.8.98 (Copy attached) vide which a chance was granted to serving employees and the employees retired or expired between 1.4.90 to 14.7.1992 to give option either for pension scheme or C.P.F. scheme. It was clearly mentioned in last lines of the above-said letter in accordance with pension statue -8 that the given option will be considered final and can not be changed. The syndicate has taken the following decision after considering the demand for providing one more opportunity (Para 54, Dt. 19.8.94), which has been accepted by the Vice Chanceller while granting relaxation in Statue-8 relating to pension: - Those employees of the University who have earlier opted for C.P.F. be granted one more date bound chance, so that if they want they can give option for pension. The employees will have to give this option within two months from the date of issuance of this letter. The employees who have already opted for pension are not entitled to opt for C.P.F. again. You are hereby requested to inform the employees of all classes working under you that if they have earlier opted for contributory provident fund, then they can give the option for VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.03.11 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4495-2001 (O&M) -5- pension while availing this special opportunity. These options alongwith prescribed performa are to be sent by the head of the department to the Deputy Registrar (Staff) within two months from the date of in issuance of this letter. It is hereby clarified that the employees now opting for pension, will be entitled to pension only after depositing the whole amount of C.P.F. of the share of the University alongwith interest in accordance with relevant Statue-9. The Syndicate has already prescribed the manner and time (para 54, dt. 28.6.91) for paying back the amount. Time is up to 31.3.1997. The employees now opting for pension will also have to pay back the amount of C.P.F. of the share of the university alongwith interest up to 31.3. 1997. In case of the employees retired or expired after opting for C.P.F., the entitlement for the pension/family pension will become only after deposing the amount of the share of the University in pension Fund before the prescribed date. You are hereby requested to get this circular noted to call the employees working in your department/Branch, so that the employees earlier opting for the C.P.F. if interested may be able to give option for pension subject to the above-noted conditions. The record regarding noting of the circular may kindly be retained. It is clarified that the pension will be implemented form 1.4. 1990. Thaking you. Your faithfully Sd/- Registrar” 11. A perusal of the above notification shows that special chance was given to the employees, who could not opt for pension and the pension scheme was implemented from 01.04.1990. 12. Admittedly, Narain Singh, the father of the appellants, retired on 31.08.1990 and as per above referred to scheme, he was entitled to pension with effect from 01.09.1990. Therefore, both the Courts below have held that the widow of the deceased-Narain Singh was entitled to pension with effect from 01.09.1990 to 25.08.1992. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.03.11 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4495-2001 (O&M) -6- 13. Now coming to the issue “as to whether the suit filed by the mother of the appellants was barred by limitation or not”? 14. Admittedly, the undisputed fact is that since the father of the appellants expired on 25.08.1992 and could not opt for the notification of the year 1992, the mother of the appellants opted for family pension under University Pension Scheme dated 12.07.1995 (as reproduced above) on 07.09.1995 and she was granted family pension with effect from 26.08.1992 since her husband expired on 25.08.1992. 15. Since it was after 07.09.1995, when she opted for family pension only, that the cause of action arose as the family pension was granted to her with effect from 26.08.1992. And she filed suit in the year 1997 i.e. within two years, which would be within the period of limitation. Moreso, she opted for family pension after 07.09.1995, and was granted family pension with effect from 26.08.1992, whereas, it was to be granted from 01.09.1990. Therefore, widow of the deceased-Narain Singh was entitled to pension with effect from 01.09.1990 to 25.08.1992. 16. Therefore, both the Courts below have wrongly held the civil suit to be barred by limitation. 17. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 passed by the learned trial Court as well as judgment and decree dated 25.07.2001 passed by the learned First Appellate Court are set aside. The appellants are held entitled to family pension with effect from 01.09.1990 to 25.08.1992. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.03.11 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4495-2001 (O&M) -7- 18. Since the matter pertains to the year 1999 and the regular second appeal is pending before this Court since 2001, the respondent- University is directed to deposit the arrears of pension with effect from 01.09.1990 to 25.08.1992 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in the accounts of the appellants in equal share within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The appellants are directed to furnish their accounts details to the respondent-University. 19. Decree sheet be drawn. 20. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 04.03.2025 adhikari Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.03.11 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document