CWP-16640 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 103+281 Kuldeep Singh Punjab State Warehousing Corporation CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR CM No.10105 The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for seeking disposal of the present writ petition in view of the judgment 06.12.2016 No.1370-2015 titled as Punjab State Warehou Rajinder Singh In view of the grounds mentioned in disposed of consent of the parties 1 16640-2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP- Date of Decision: Kuldeep Singh VERSUS Punjab State Warehousing Corporation HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Mr. Chankirant Singh Bakshi and Ms. Aakriti Aggarwal, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Parambir Singh and Ms. Namrata Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) CM No.10105-CWP-2025 The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for seeking disposal of the present writ petition in view of the judgment 06.12.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in 2015 titled as Punjab State Warehou Rajinder Singh in the interest of justice. In view of the grounds mentioned in disposed of and the main petition is taken up on board today itself consent of the parties. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -16640-2021(O&M) Date of Decision: September 11, 2025 ...Petitioner VERSUS ...Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Mr. Chankirant Singh Bakshi and Ms. Aakriti Aggarwal, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Parambir Singh and Ms. Namrata Sharma, Advocate for the The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for seeking disposal of the present writ petition in view of the judgment dated passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in LPA 2015 titled as Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Versus In view of the grounds mentioned in therein, the present application is and the main petition is taken up on board today itself, with the September 11, 2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent Mr. Parambir Singh and Ms. Namrata Sharma, Advocate for the The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for dated LPA sing Corporation Versus the present application is , with the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16640 CM-13208- The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for placing on record filed by the petitioner. In view of the reasons mentioned allowed and the reply of respondent is ordered to be taken on record. Registry is directed to do the needful. CWP-16640 1. Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of the petitioner for grant of pens at the time of enforcement of 2. petitioner was appointed year 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner earned promotions from time to time and ultimately retired from the service on 31.03.2021. Further, before retirement, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent Corporation for fixing his p superannuation but his request remained unheeded. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner served a legal notice respondent. Thereafter, he received a letter dated 05.04.2021 from the respondent notice were consigned to the record room, 2 16640-2021 -CWP-2025 in CM-10105-CWP The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for placing on record the reply of the respondent to the CM filed by the petitioner. In view of the reasons mentioned therein allowed and the reply of respondent is ordered to be taken on record. Registry is directed to do the needful. 16640-2021 The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension as no option was taken from him at any stage at the time of enforcement of Pension Scheme Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner was appointed as a Helper by the respondent year 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner earned promotions from time to time and ultimately retired from the service on 31.03.2021. Further, before retirement, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent Corporation for fixing his pension on superannuation but his request remained unheeded. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure P . Thereafter, he received a letter dated 05.04.2021 from the respondent-Corporation, whereby his representation and legal notice were consigned to the record room, CWP-2025 The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for respondent to the CM-10105-CWP-2025 therein, the present application is allowed and the reply of respondent is ordered to be taken on record. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to consider the claim of as no option was taken from him at any stage Pension Scheme by the respondent-Corporation Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that by the respondent-Corporation in the year 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner earned promotions from time to time and ultimately retired from the service on 31.03.2021. Further, before his retirement, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent ension on attainment of the age of superannuation but his request remained unheeded. Feeling aggrieved, the 23.03.2021 (Annexure P-2) on the . Thereafter, he received a letter dated 05.04.2021 (Annexure P-3) whereby his representation and legal notice were consigned to the record room, without providing him an The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for 2025 ation is allowed and the reply of respondent is ordered to be taken on record. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to consider the claim of as no option was taken from him at any stage contends that in the year 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner earned promotions from time to time his retirement, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent- the age of superannuation but his request remained unheeded. Feeling aggrieved, the on the 3) whereby his representation and legal without providing him an PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16640 opportunity of being heard. On enquiring shocked to in the Pension Scheme P-4). Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not aware that he was required to specifically opt in for the scheme. An was required to be circulated to each employee and recorded. However, the his entire service tenure nor the concerned official of the Corporation info consent. 3. petitioner has never refused or made any request to the Corporation vide notification dated 24.04.1996(Annexure P was on the Scheme that they must opt in to the same within three months if they want to avail its benefits. Scheme due to administrative laxity Corporation judgment passed by titled as Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Versus Rajinder Singh dated 06.12.2016 4. 3 16640-2021 opportunity of being heard. On enquiring about shocked to find found that he had failed to exercise his option Pension Scheme in terms of notification dated 24.04.1996 Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not aware that he was required to specifically opt in for the scheme. An was required to be circulated to each employee and However, the petitioner never received his entire service tenure nor the concerned official of the Corporation informed him about the requirement of submission of Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that petitioner has never refused or made any request to the Corporation to not to grant him the benefits vide notification dated 24.04.1996(Annexure P was on the respondent-Corporation to inform all employees of the Pension Scheme that they must opt in to the same within three months if they want to avail its benefits. The petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of Scheme due to administrative laxity Corporation. Lastly, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Versus Rajinder Singh dated 06.12.2016 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that about the same, the petitioner was failed to exercise his option to participate in terms of notification dated 24.04.1996 (Annexure Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not aware that he was required to specifically opt in for the scheme. An office order in this regard was required to be circulated to each employee and their consent had to be petitioner never received any such circulars during his entire service tenure nor the concerned official of the respondent rmed him about the requirement of submission of his Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that petitioner has never refused or made any request to the respondent s of the Pension Scheme notified vide notification dated 24.04.1996(Annexure P-4). Further, the obligation to inform all employees of the Pension Scheme that they must opt in to the same within three months if they want to e petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of the Pension displayed by the respondent . Lastly, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1370-2015 Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Versus Rajinder Singh , learned counsel for the respondent submits that was to participate (Annexure Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not aware that he was der in this regard had to be during respondent- his Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that respondent- notified 4). Further, the obligation to inform all employees of the Pension Scheme that they must opt in to the same within three months if they want to Pension displayed by the respondent- . Lastly, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the 2015 Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Versus Rajinder Singh , learned counsel for the respondent submits that PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16640 petitioner continued to sleep over his rights for several years retirement in the option prior to the cut P-4). He draws the coordinate Singh Versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation 27.04.2015 and submits that the petitioner therein was under suspension when the new Pension Scheme was implemented placed on LPA places reliance upon the judgment passed the Hon’ble Apex Court in Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs. Mangal Singh and other, AIR 2011 SC 1974 No.1725-2013, Punjab Versus Gurdeep Singh Cheema and another LPA No.1097 decided on 22.12.2014 5. the record with their able assistance (supra) is distinguishable from the matter at hand on facts as the petitioner therein was on suspension at the time of implementation of the new Scheme while the petitioner was in continuous service 31.03.2021. 4 16640-2021 petitioner continued to sleep over his rights for several years retirement in the year 2021 and he remained indolent in exercising his option prior to the cut-off date as provided under the Scheme (Annexure draws the attention of this Court coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP- Singh Versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation 27.04.2015 and submits that the petitioner therein was under suspension when the new Pension Scheme was implemented on LPA-1370-2015 is totally misconc reliance upon the judgment passed the Hon’ble Apex Court in Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs. Mangal Singh and other, AIR 2011 SC 1974 and judgement of Division Bench of this Court in 2013, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Chandigarh Versus Gurdeep Singh Cheema and another LPA No.1097-2014, Som Singh Versus State of Punjab and others decided on 22.12.2014 and prays for dismissal of the present petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, it transpires that is distinguishable from the matter at hand on facts as the petitioner therein was on suspension at the time of implementation of the new while the petitioner was in continuous service 31.03.2021. petitioner continued to sleep over his rights for several years since his remained indolent in exercising his off date as provided under the Scheme (Annexure attention of this Court to the judgment passed by -10614-2012, titled as Rajinder Singh Versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, decided on 27.04.2015 and submits that the petitioner therein was under suspension when the new Pension Scheme was implemented, as such, the reliance is totally misconceived. Learned counsel also reliance upon the judgment passed the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs. Mangal Singh and other, AIR and judgement of Division Bench of this Court in LPA State Warehousing Corporation Chandigarh Versus Gurdeep Singh Cheema and another, decided on 23.12.2014 and 2014, Som Singh Versus State of Punjab and others and prays for dismissal of the present petition. learned counsel for the parties and after perusing , it transpires that Rajinder Singh’s case is distinguishable from the matter at hand on facts as the petitioner therein was on suspension at the time of implementation of the new Pension while the petitioner was in continuous service from 07.10.1985 to since his remained indolent in exercising his off date as provided under the Scheme (Annexure judgment passed by a Rajinder decided on 27.04.2015 and submits that the petitioner therein was under suspension s such, the reliance Learned counsel also Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs. Mangal Singh and other, AIR LPA State Warehousing Corporation Chandigarh and 2014, Som Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, after perusing Rajinder Singh’s case is distinguishable from the matter at hand on facts as the petitioner Pension from 07.10.1985 to PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16640 6. rendered by a India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr 2025 INSC 373, following observations “13. In the absence of the first are left with no option but to hold that BoI did observe the aforesaid directions in letter and spirit and to all the retir that they would be having the window of opportunity to so opt by submitting the requisite forms by 30th October, 2010. 15. The Division Bench referred to the beneficial nature of the policy to grant relief to the first respondent. formulated, which is beneficial in nature for the subjects to be governed thereby but, at the same time, prescribes a time the subjects to act, it is not and cannot be the law that the proposed benefits can be availed of by a subject beyond the stipulated period and at any time in future suiting his convenience 16. Almost half a century back, this Court in Mani Su of Haryana had sounded a word of caution as follows: 17. In the pre opportunity to exercise option by 30th October, 2010, occasion for denial or deprivation of a legal right of the first respondent by the appellants. of the first respondent to opt for the pension scheme was not wrongful in the eye of law since it is he who had to be blamed for the situation where he found himself. The first respondent had neither sustained any injury to any legally protected interest he been subjected to a legal wrong. He did not suffer a legal grievance and had no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. 5 16640-2021 At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment rendered by a Two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr 2025 , wherein while speaking through Justice Dipankar Datta the g observations were made:- “13. In the absence of the first respondent are left with no option but to hold that BoI did observe the aforesaid directions in letter and spirit and spared no effort to make it known to all the retired employees, eligible to opt for the pension scheme, that they would be having the window of opportunity to so opt by submitting the requisite forms by 30th October, 2010. 15. The Division Bench referred to the beneficial nature of the policy to grant relief to the first respondent. formulated, which is beneficial in nature for the subjects to be governed thereby but, at the same time, prescribes a time the subjects to act, it is not and cannot be the law that the proposed benefits can be availed of by a subject beyond the stipulated period and at any time in future suiting his convenience 16. Almost half a century back, this Court in Mani Su of Haryana had sounded a word of caution as follows: “9. … It is elementary though it is to be restated that can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protect right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. 17. In the present case, after the first respondent did not avail the opportunity to exercise option by 30th October, 2010, occasion for denial or deprivation of a legal right of the first respondent by the appellants. The harm or loss arising out of failur of the first respondent to opt for the pension scheme was not wrongful in the eye of law since it is he who had to be blamed for the situation where he found himself. The first respondent had neither sustained any injury to any legally protected interest he been subjected to a legal wrong. He did not suffer a legal grievance and had no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. would be profitable to refer to the judgment Two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr 2025 while speaking through Justice Dipankar Datta the respondent proving to the contrary, we are left with no option but to hold that BoI did observe the aforesaid spared no effort to make it known ed employees, eligible to opt for the pension scheme, that they would be having the window of opportunity to so opt by submitting the requisite forms by 30th October, 2010. 15. The Division Bench referred to the beneficial nature of the policy to grant relief to the first respondent. Whenever a policy is formulated, which is beneficial in nature for the subjects to be governed thereby but, at the same time, prescribes a time limit for the subjects to act, it is not and cannot be the law that the proposed benefits can be availed of by a subject beyond the stipulated period and at any time in future suiting his convenience. 16. Almost half a century back, this Court in Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana had sounded a word of caution as follows: “9. … It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. …” first respondent did not avail the opportunity to exercise option by 30th October, 2010, there was no occasion for denial or deprivation of a legal right of the first The harm or loss arising out of failur of the first respondent to opt for the pension scheme was not wrongful in the eye of law since it is he who had to be blamed for the situation where he found himself. The first respondent had neither sustained any injury to any legally protected interest nor had he been subjected to a legal wrong. He did not suffer a legal grievance and had no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. would be profitable to refer to the judgment Bank of India & Ors. v. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr 2025 while speaking through Justice Dipankar Datta the proving to the contrary, we are left with no option but to hold that BoI did observe the aforesaid spared no effort to make it known ed employees, eligible to opt for the pension scheme, that they would be having the window of opportunity to so opt by 15. The Division Bench referred to the beneficial nature of the policy Whenever a policy is formulated, which is beneficial in nature for the subjects to be limit for the subjects to act, it is not and cannot be the law that the proposed benefits can be availed of by a subject beyond the stipulated period brat Jain v. State no one There must be ed right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty first respondent did not avail the there was no occasion for denial or deprivation of a legal right of the first The harm or loss arising out of failure of the first respondent to opt for the pension scheme was not wrongful in the eye of law since it is he who had to be blamed for the situation where he found himself. The first respondent had nor had he been subjected to a legal wrong. He did not suffer a legal grievance and had no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16640 Thus, not having a legally protected right which could have been judicially enforced by seeking a mandamus, the writ p first respondent was plainly not maintainable and, thus, the Single Judge rightly dismissed the same.” 7. 24.04.1996 31.03.2021. opt for the Pension Scheme. regarding the same thrice, also a matter of record that o Pension Scheme. 8. which demonstrates that the information was disseminated properly and effectively throughout the organisation issue even once since his appointment in 1985. petitioner to not conduct, as he continued to pay his contribution Provident Fund Scheme till his retirement. 9. laxity in failure to opt for the respondent- under Article 226 of the Constitution the tardy, the indolent, and the lethargic. 10. present writ petition is dismissed 6 16640-2021 Thus, not having a legally protected right which could have been judicially enforced by seeking a mandamus, the writ p first respondent was plainly not maintainable and, thus, the Single Judge rightly dismissed the same.” It appears that the Pension Scheme was implemented on about 25 years prior to the retirement of petitioner on 31.03.2021. The employees were duly provided with three months time to for the Pension Scheme. In fact reminders were regarding the same thrice, with the last reminder being on 27.06.1997 matter of record that out of 1794, 1709 employees opted for the Pension Scheme. Clearly 97% of the employees opted for the Pension Scheme which demonstrates that the information was disseminated properly and effectively throughout the organisation. T issue even once since his appointment in 1985. petitioner to not opt for the Pension Scheme is clearly demonstrated conduct, as he continued to pay his contribution nt Fund Scheme till his retirement. The harm or loss suffered by the petitioner due to his failure to opt for the Pension Scheme -Corporation. This Court is of the considered opinion that p ticle 226 of the Constitution ought not to be exercised in the tardy, the indolent, and the lethargic. In view of the facts and circumstances present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Thus, not having a legally protected right which could have been judicially enforced by seeking a mandamus, the writ petition of the first respondent was plainly not maintainable and, thus, the Single that the Pension Scheme was implemented on the retirement of petitioner on were duly provided with three months time to eminders were also given to them with the last reminder being on 27.06.1997. It is ut of 1794, 1709 employees opted for the 97% of the employees opted for the Pension Scheme which demonstrates that the information was disseminated properly and . The petitioner failed to raise this issue even once since his appointment in 1985. The intention of the the Pension Scheme is clearly demonstrated by his conduct, as he continued to pay his contribution towards the Employee The harm or loss suffered by the petitioner due to his own Pension Scheme cannot be attributed to Corporation. This Court is of the considered opinion that powers ought not to be exercised in the aid of circumstances of the present case, the being devoid of any merit. Thus, not having a legally protected right which could have been etition of the first respondent was plainly not maintainable and, thus, the Single that the Pension Scheme was implemented on the retirement of petitioner on were duly provided with three months time to them . It is ut of 1794, 1709 employees opted for the 97% of the employees opted for the Pension Scheme which demonstrates that the information was disseminated properly and this The intention of the his Employee own cannot be attributed to owers the aid of , the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16640 11. disposed of. September 11, 2025 P.C 7 16640-2021 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of. September 11, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document