RSA-2094-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA Punjabi University, Patiala and anr. Inderjeet Kaur CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. for the appellants. Mr. for the **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present regular second decree dated 19.01.2024 whereby the civil suit favour and judgment and appellant against learned Additional FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 2. Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that appointed on the post of Drawing Teacher on 20.10.1980 by the University and was posted in University Model School, Punjabi University, Patiala. She was promoted on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 24.4.1992 and retired on 30.4.2015 while working on the post of Lecturer under the University. Appellant 25 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2094 Date of Reserve Date of Pronouncement Punjabi University, Patiala and anr. vs. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. The present regular second appeal is preferred again 19.01.2024 passed by learned Civil J whereby the civil suit for declaration filed by the and judgment and decree dated 25.11.2024 against the judgment and decree dated dditional District Judge, Patiala. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that appointed on the post of Drawing Teacher on 20.10.1980 by the and was posted in University Model School, Punjabi University, was promoted on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 24.4.1992 and was further promoted to the post of Lecturer we.f. 31.5.2013 30.4.2015 while working on the post of Lecturer under the Appellant-University notified grant of option of pension to the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2094-2025 (O&M) Reserve:- 29.08.2025 Pronouncement:-02.09.2025 ......Appellants vs. …..Respondent SUDEEPTI SHARMA , Advocate appeal is preferred against judgment and ivil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala by the respondent, was decreed in her 25.11.2024 whereby the appeal filed by the ree dated 19.01.2024 was dismissed Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that the respondent appointed on the post of Drawing Teacher on 20.10.1980 by the appellant and was posted in University Model School, Punjabi University, was promoted on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher w.e.f. the post of Lecturer we.f. 31.5.2013 30.4.2015 while working on the post of Lecturer under the appellant University notified grant of option of pension to the 1 …..Respondent judgment and Patiala respondent, was decreed in her by the sed by respondent was appellant- and was posted in University Model School, Punjabi University, was promoted on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher w.e.f. and appellant- University notified grant of option of pension to the GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2094-2025 employees, who letter No. 4511 University provided and sought option accordingly. CPF scheme, she months from the date of issuance of letter dated 17.7.2009. The said option form was forwarded vide diary No. 13388 dated 8.8.2009 to the University, Patiala the option form stating that the amount payable by the pension may be adjusted University. The grant of pension and accordingly CP respondent was allotted GPF account No. 1524 and the CP 2469 was stopped and the and purposes. 3. Thereafter the CP respondent and 1585 was also allotted to the respondent retired from service w.e.f. 30.4.2015, but she by the appellant the respondent to the effect that the action of appellant the respondent w.e.f 01.05.2015 of the post of Lecturer held by the respondent at the time of her retirement i.e 30.04.2015 is illegal pension w.e.f 01.05.2015 along with arrears of pension annum. The civil suit filed by the respondent was decreed in her favour, vide 25 (O&M) employees, who were in service on 24.2.2000 under the letter No. 4511-4710/Accountant dated 17.7.2009. Vide this letter, the University provided one special opportunity for grant of pension to its employees and sought option accordingly. Since the respondent was earlier co CPF scheme, she opted for pension on 5.8.2009 within the stipulated period of two months from the date of issuance of letter dated 17.7.2009. The said option form was forwarded vide diary No. 13388 dated 8.8.2009 to the rsity, Patiala. The respondent also attached letter dated 5.8.2009 alongwith the option form stating that the amount payable by the pension may be adjusted from the arrears of the CPF lying with the . The appellant-University accepted the option of the grant of pension and accordingly CPF account was changed to that of GPF and the was allotted GPF account No. 1524 and the CP 2469 was stopped and the respondent was put in the pension scheme for all intents Thereafter the CPF was not deducted from the salary of the and she was put under the GPF Pension category. The pension No. 1585 was also allotted to the respondent retired from service w.e.f. 30.4.2015, but she appellant-University despite repeated representations and requests made by respondent to the appellant-University. She then filed civil s to the effect that the action of appellant-University by not awarding the pension to the respondent w.e.f 01.05.2015 of the post of Lecturer held by the respondent at the time of her retirement i.e 30.04.2015 is illegal pension w.e.f 01.05.2015 along with arrears of pension The civil suit filed by the respondent was decreed in her favour, vide in service on 24.2.2000 under the appellant-University, vide 4710/Accountant dated 17.7.2009. Vide this letter, the appellant one special opportunity for grant of pension to its employees Since the respondent was earlier covered under opted for pension on 5.8.2009 within the stipulated period of two months from the date of issuance of letter dated 17.7.2009. The said option form was forwarded vide diary No. 13388 dated 8.8.2009 to the Registrar, Punjabi also attached letter dated 5.8.2009 alongwith the option form stating that the amount payable by the respondent for getting the the arrears of the CPF lying with the appellant accepted the option of the respondent account was changed to that of GPF and the was allotted GPF account No. 1524 and the CPF account bearing No. was put in the pension scheme for all intents was not deducted from the salary of the he was put under the GPF Pension category. The pension No. respondent by the appellant-University. The pension No. respondent by the appellant-University. retired from service w.e.f. 30.4.2015, but she was not granted pension despite repeated representations and requests made by She then filed civil suit for declaration University by not awarding the pension to the respondent w.e.f 01.05.2015 of the post of Lecturer held by the respondent at the time of her retirement i.e 30.04.2015 is illegal and that she is entitled for pension w.e.f 01.05.2015 along with arrears of pension and interest @ 18% per The civil suit filed by the respondent was decreed in her favour, vide 2 vide appellant- one special opportunity for grant of pension to its employees vered under opted for pension on 5.8.2009 within the stipulated period of two months from the date of issuance of letter dated 17.7.2009. The said option form Registrar, Punjabi also attached letter dated 5.8.2009 alongwith for getting the appellant- respondent for account was changed to that of GPF and the account bearing No. was put in the pension scheme for all intents was not deducted from the salary of the he was put under the GPF Pension category. The pension No. . The not granted pension despite repeated representations and requests made by uit for declaration University by not awarding the pension to the respondent w.e.f 01.05.2015 of the post of Lecturer held by the respondent at entitled for @ 18% per The civil suit filed by the respondent was decreed in her favour, vide GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2094-2025 judgment and decree dated 19.01.2024 Division), Patiala. The appellants filed appeal against the same, which was dismissed vide Additional District SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the the respondent in the year 2020 is highly appellant-University stopped depositing the amount in the pension fund account of the respondent retired on 30.04.2015 and claimed the amount of CPF Further she filed the civil suit in the year 2020 for claiming pension, which is time barred. He further conten sent by the respondent for deducting the amount which was required to be deposited by her in the Pension Fund as per Rules and Schemes. Further that even if the employer share was not deposited in the Pension Fund account of the respondent, no loss was caused to that the present Regular second appeal 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent concurrent findings against the appellants documents was never challenged by the appellant respondent who scheme. After receiving her option to her informing her that she had to deposit an amount of Rs.6 University pension fund as per rules and also as per the said scheme, within a period of two mont to deposit the said amount within two months, then she would not be entitled to 25 (O&M) judgment and decree dated 19.01.2024 passed by learne Patiala. The appellants filed appeal against the same, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated istrict Judge, Patiala. Hence, the present SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the the respondent in the year 2020 is highly belated University stopped depositing the amount in the pension fund account of dent, which was never challenged by the respondent. The respondent 30.04.2015 and claimed the amount of CPF Further she filed the civil suit in the year 2020 for claiming pension, which is time barred. He further contends that Ex P3 and P30 are not proved sent by the respondent for deducting the amount which was required to be deposited by her in the Pension Fund as per Rules and Further that even if the employer share was not deposited in the Pension Fund account of the respondent, no loss was caused to that the present Regular second appeal be allowed. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent concurrent findings against the appellants. Further that authenticity of the documents was never challenged by the appellant respondent who was earlier covered under the CPF Scheme, opted for pension scheme. After receiving her option, letter No. to her informing her that she had to deposit an amount of Rs.6 University pension fund as per rules and also as per the said scheme, within a period of two months from the date of letter. That i to deposit the said amount within two months, then she would not be entitled to passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Patiala. The appellants filed appeal against the same, which was dated 25.11.2024 passed by learned Patiala. Hence, the present Regular second appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the civil suit filed by belated, since in the year 2013, the University stopped depositing the amount in the pension fund account of , which was never challenged by the respondent. The respondent 30.04.2015 and claimed the amount of CPF and GPF in the year 2018 Further she filed the civil suit in the year 2020 for claiming pension, which is time ds that Ex P3 and P30 are not proved, which is the letter sent by the respondent for deducting the amount from her CPF and GPF Account, which was required to be deposited by her in the Pension Fund as per Rules and Further that even if the employer share was not deposited in the Pension Fund account of the respondent, no loss was caused to her. He, therefore, prays allowed. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that there are . Further that authenticity of the documents was never challenged by the appellant-University. And that was earlier covered under the CPF Scheme, opted for pension 7426 dated 12.10.2009 was issued to her informing her that she had to deposit an amount of Rs.6,63,058/- in the University pension fund as per rules and also as per the said scheme, within a hat it was mentioned that if she fails to deposit the said amount within two months, then she would not be entitled to 3 nior Patiala. The appellants filed appeal against the same, which was learned civil suit filed by since in the year 2013, the University stopped depositing the amount in the pension fund account of , which was never challenged by the respondent. The respondent GPF in the year 2018. Further she filed the civil suit in the year 2020 for claiming pension, which is time which is the letter from her CPF and GPF Account, which was required to be deposited by her in the Pension Fund as per Rules and Further that even if the employer share was not deposited in the Pension He, therefore, prays contends that there are . Further that authenticity of the that the was earlier covered under the CPF Scheme, opted for pension 7426 dated 12.10.2009 was issued in the University pension fund as per rules and also as per the said scheme, within a fails to deposit the said amount within two months, then she would not be entitled to GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2094-2025 the benefits of the pension scheme and would be covered under the CPF Scheme. That the appellant for four years and suddenly stopped depositing the amount without serving notice to the respondent. appellant-University which were ignored and were n should have been started after deduction of deficient amount from the pension account along with interest. appeal be dismissed. 6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment of this Court in cases of of Punjab and others, 2017 (3) SCT 170, Gurdev Singh v s. H.V.P.N.L and others, 2006 (4) SCT 809, Shardha Ram Haryana and others, 2012 (2) PLR 411 Court of India in a case of A.N. Sachdeva (dead) by LRs and others vs. Maharashi Dayanand University Rohtak and another, 2015 (10) SCC 117 contend that retiral benefits should be granted after adjustment of amount due along with interest from pension but pension benefits should not be stopped 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with Analysis of the Record 8. A perusal of the record shows that the respondent was appointed on the post of Drawing Teacher on 30.04.2015 while working on the post of Lecturer issued notification and provided special opportunity to its employees to opt for grant of pension. scheme on 05.08.2009 25 (O&M) the benefits of the pension scheme and would be covered under the CPF Scheme. hat the appellant-University started depositing the amount in the Pension account for four years and suddenly stopped depositing the amount without serving notice to the respondent. That respondent made many representations to the University which were ignored and were n should have been started after deduction of deficient amount from the pension account along with interest. He, therefore, prays that the present Regular second appeal be dismissed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment of this Court in cases of of Punjab and others, 2017 (3) SCT 170, Gurdev Singh v s. H.V.P.N.L and others, 2006 (4) SCT 809, Shardha Ram Haryana and others, 2012 (2) PLR 411 and judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of A.N. Sachdeva (dead) by LRs and others vs. Maharashi Dayanand University Rohtak and another, 2015 (10) SCC 117 retiral benefits should be granted after adjustment of amount due along with interest from pension but pension benefits should not be stopped I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. Analysis of the Record A perusal of the record shows that the respondent was appointed on the post of Drawing Teacher on 20.10.1980 and retired from service on while working on the post of Lecturer issued notification and provided special opportunity to its employees to opt for grant of pension. In view of the said notification, respondent opted for pension scheme on 05.08.2009 within the time frame of two months. The defe the benefits of the pension scheme and would be covered under the CPF Scheme. started depositing the amount in the Pension account for four years and suddenly stopped depositing the amount without serving hat respondent made many representations to the University which were ignored and were not replied. The pension should have been started after deduction of deficient amount from the pension He, therefore, prays that the present Regular second In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment of this Court in cases of Subhash Chand Khullar vs. State of Punjab and others, 2017 (3) SCT 170, Gurdev Singh v s. H.V.P.N.L and alias Bashir Ahmed vs. State of and judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of A.N. Sachdeva (dead) by LRs and others vs. Maharashi Dayanand University Rohtak and another, 2015 (10) SCC 117 retiral benefits should be granted after adjustment of amount due along with interest from pension but pension benefits should not be stopped. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole A perusal of the record shows that the respondent was appointed on 20.10.1980 and retired from service on while working on the post of Lecturer. The appellant-University issued notification and provided special opportunity to its employees to opt for In view of the said notification, respondent opted for pension within the time frame of two months. The defendant 4 the benefits of the pension scheme and would be covered under the CPF Scheme. started depositing the amount in the Pension account for four years and suddenly stopped depositing the amount without serving any hat respondent made many representations to the ot replied. The pension should have been started after deduction of deficient amount from the pension He, therefore, prays that the present Regular second In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has Subhash Chand Khullar vs. State of Punjab and others, 2017 (3) SCT 170, Gurdev Singh v s. H.V.P.N.L and alias Bashir Ahmed vs. State of and judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of A.N. Sachdeva (dead) by LRs and others vs. Maharashi Dayanand University Rohtak and another, 2015 (10) SCC 117, to retiral benefits should be granted after adjustment of amount due I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole A perusal of the record shows that the respondent was appointed on 20.10.1980 and retired from service on University issued notification and provided special opportunity to its employees to opt for In view of the said notification, respondent opted for pension ndant GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2094-2025 department considered the option given by and opened pension account GPF account no.1524. the pension scheme knowledge, the and did not pay pension granting pension was that the respondent did not comply with the direction to deposit the amount of Rs.6,63,058/ within a period of two mont 9. The respondent had specifically written University to adjust the amount lying in scheme account the amount which was lying in the CPF towards pension account but the appellant-University did not reply to the same. She gave many representations to the appellant-University to de the same. 10. A perusal of the record further shows that the respondent had sent a letter to the appellant Account. Her consent vide letter dated 14 of Rs.6,63,058/ A perusal of the record further shows that since the date of her retirement, she kept representing the appellant documentary record a letter dated 14.10.2009 required amount of Rs.6,63,058/ letter dated 20.10.2009 issued by the appellant 25 (O&M) department considered the option given by respondent and opened pension account GPF account no.1524. the pension scheme from 05.08.2009 to 21.03.2013. Thereafter, without the appellant-University converted the GPF account to CPF account and did not pay pension to the respondent after retirement. The granting pension was that the respondent did not comply with the direction to deposit the amount of Rs.6,63,058/- in Pension Fund as per Rules and schemes, within a period of two months from the date of notification. The respondent had specifically written University to adjust the amount lying in her C account. As per the record, the respondent was ready for the adjustment of the amount which was lying in the CPF towards pension account but the University did not reply to the same. She gave many representations to University to decide her pension issue but there was no response to A perusal of the record further shows that the respondent had sent a letter to the appellant-University to deduct the required amount from her CPF Account. Her consent vide letter dated 14.10.2009 to deduct the required amount of Rs.6,63,058/- from her CPF Account No. 2469 A perusal of the record further shows that since the date of her retirement, she kept representing the appellant-University for her retir record shows that the respondent opted for pension scheme and sent a letter dated 14.10.2009 which is part of the record as Ex P30 for deduction of the required amount of Rs.6,63,058/- from her CPF Account No. 2469. Ex D1 is the letter dated 20.10.2009 issued by the appellant- respondent and closed her CPF account and opened pension account GPF account no.1524. Respondent remained under 05.08.2009 to 21.03.2013. Thereafter, without University converted the GPF account to CPF account after retirement. The reason for not granting pension was that the respondent did not comply with the direction to n Pension Fund as per Rules and schemes, s from the date of notification. The respondent had specifically written letter to the appellant er CPF account towards the pension . As per the record, the respondent was ready for the adjustment of the amount which was lying in the CPF towards pension account but the University did not reply to the same. She gave many representations to cide her pension issue but there was no response to A perusal of the record further shows that the respondent had sent a University to deduct the required amount from her CPF .10.2009 to deduct the required amount from her CPF Account No. 2469 is part of the record as Ex P30. A perusal of the record further shows that since the date of her retirement, she kept University for her retiral benefits. Oral as well as shows that the respondent opted for pension scheme and sent which is part of the record as Ex P30 for deduction of the from her CPF Account No. 2469. Ex D1 is the -University asking the respondent to 5 CPF account remained under 05.08.2009 to 21.03.2013. Thereafter, without her University converted the GPF account to CPF account reason for not granting pension was that the respondent did not comply with the direction to n Pension Fund as per Rules and schemes, appellant- F account towards the pension . As per the record, the respondent was ready for the adjustment of the amount which was lying in the CPF towards pension account but the University did not reply to the same. She gave many representations to cide her pension issue but there was no response to A perusal of the record further shows that the respondent had sent a University to deduct the required amount from her CPF .10.2009 to deduct the required amount is part of the record as Ex P30. A perusal of the record further shows that since the date of her retirement, she kept ral as well as shows that the respondent opted for pension scheme and sent which is part of the record as Ex P30 for deduction of the from her CPF Account No. 2469. Ex D1 is the asking the respondent to GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2094-2025 deposit the amount within a period 20.10.2009. 11. Ex. P30 which is prior to letter dated 20.10.2009. The appellant sending any notice/intimation to the respondent af transferred her 12. DW vide Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 on 08.08.2009 and as per Ex P17 with the condition that she must appellant-university qua pension. He further admitted that the amount lying in CPF account was comes to Rs.5,29,710/ letter was issued to admitted that as per record CPF account was changed in pension account and number 1524 was allotted to her and CPF account no.2469 was closed and t pension account was continued upto 21.03.2013. 13. A perusal of the record further shows that despite the consent of the respondent was there to adjust the amount of Rs.6,63,058/ Account, there is no reasoning given by the appellant amount was not respondent was ever intimated regarding the non receipt of the amount of Rs.6,63,058/- as per Rules and Schemes and no notice was given to the respondent for stopping her Pension Account on 21.03.2013. Number of representations were submitted by the respondent dated appellants which are no response to the same. Further, since the respondent was not getting any pension 25 (O&M) deposit the amount within a period of two months from the date of letter dated Ex. P30 i.e letter dated 14.10.2009 which is prior to letter dated 20.10.2009. The appellant sending any notice/intimation to the respondent af transferred her pension account to CPF Account. DW-1 deposed that the respondent vide Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 on 08.08.2009 and as per Ex P17 condition that she must deposit the amount of R university qua pension. He further admitted that the amount lying in was Rs 3,30,255/- and GPF account Rs.1,99,455. Thus, total amount Rs.5,29,710/- lying in account of respondent. letter was issued to respondent that amount was less by Rs admitted that as per record CPF account was changed in pension account and number 1524 was allotted to her and CPF account no.2469 was closed and t pension account was continued upto 21.03.2013. A perusal of the record further shows that despite the consent of the respondent was there to adjust the amount of Rs.6,63,058/ Account, there is no reasoning given by the appellant amount was not adjusted. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent was ever intimated regarding the non receipt of the amount of as per Rules and Schemes and no notice was given to the respondent for stopping her Pension Account on 21.03.2013. Number of representations were submitted by the respondent dated 15.10.2014, 18.03.2016 and 02.01.2017 to the which are part of record as Ex.P20, Ex.P21 and Ex.P22 no response to the same. Further, since the respondent was not getting any pension of two months from the date of letter dated letter dated 14.10.2009 is the consent of the respondent which is prior to letter dated 20.10.2009. The appellant-University without sending any notice/intimation to the respondent after 04 years on 21.03.2013, account to CPF Account. respondent had opted for pension scheme vide Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 on 08.08.2009 and as per Ex P17, her option was accep deposit the amount of Rs. 6,63,058/- with university qua pension. He further admitted that the amount lying in and GPF account Rs.1,99,455. Thus, total amount respondent. He further admitted that n that amount was less by Rs. 1,33,348/-. He further admitted that as per record CPF account was changed in pension account and number 1524 was allotted to her and CPF account no.2469 was closed and t pension account was continued upto 21.03.2013. A perusal of the record further shows that despite the consent of the respondent was there to adjust the amount of Rs.6,63,058/- from her CPF and GPF Account, there is no reasoning given by the appellant-University as to why the . Further, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent was ever intimated regarding the non receipt of the amount of as per Rules and Schemes and no notice was given to the respondent for stopping her Pension Account on 21.03.2013. Number of representations were 15.10.2014, 18.03.2016 and 02.01.2017 to the Ex.P20, Ex.P21 and Ex.P22 but there was no response to the same. Further, since the respondent was not getting any pension 6 of two months from the date of letter dated is the consent of the respondent University without 21.03.2013, opted for pension scheme pted with university qua pension. He further admitted that the amount lying in and GPF account Rs.1,99,455. Thus, total amount further admitted that no . He further admitted that as per record CPF account was changed in pension account and number 1524 was allotted to her and CPF account no.2469 was closed and this A perusal of the record further shows that despite the consent of the from her CPF and GPF University as to why the . Further, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent was ever intimated regarding the non receipt of the amount of as per Rules and Schemes and no notice was given to the respondent for stopping her Pension Account on 21.03.2013. Number of representations were 15.10.2014, 18.03.2016 and 02.01.2017 to the but there was no response to the same. Further, since the respondent was not getting any pension GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2094-2025 and was a widow CPF/GPF Funds 14. A perusal of the whole record as well as facts and circumstances of this particular case shows that the respondent was unnecessarily harassed for pension. It is not disputed from her CPF/GPF Account for which her consent is very much there The act and conduct of the appellant appellant-Unive respondent. It was the duty of the appellant give notice regarding deficient amount before taking such harsh step of stopping the pension of the respondent, which she opted for and gave consent to amount of Rs.6,63,058/ account towards the pension account CONCLUSION 15. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in decree dated 19.01.2024 as well as judgment and District Judge, second appeal is dismissed. 16. Parties are left to bear their own costs. accordingly. 17. Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. 02.09.2025 Gaurav Arora 25 (O&M) and was a widow and was in urgent need of money, therefore, she withdrew the CPF/GPF Funds under protest, which is also part of the record. A perusal of the whole record as well as facts and circumstances of this particular case shows that the respondent was unnecessarily harassed for is not disputed that amount of Rs.6,63,058/ from her CPF/GPF Account for which her consent is very much there The act and conduct of the appellant-University as per record shows that the University intentionally never wanted to release the pension to the was the duty of the appellant-University to inform give notice regarding deficient amount before taking such harsh step of stopping the pension of the respondent, which she opted for and gave consent to of Rs.6,63,058/- from the amount which account towards the pension account, as per Rules and Schemes. CONCLUSION In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in 19.01.2024 passed by learned Civil J judgment and decree dated 25.11.2024 passed Patiala and the same are upheld second appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable and was in urgent need of money, therefore, she withdrew the also part of the record. A perusal of the whole record as well as facts and circumstances of this particular case shows that the respondent was unnecessarily harassed for that amount of Rs.6,63,058/- could always be adjusted from her CPF/GPF Account for which her consent is very much there on record University as per record shows that the sity intentionally never wanted to release the pension to the University to inform respondent or to give notice regarding deficient amount before taking such harsh step of stopping the pension of the respondent, which she opted for and gave consent to adjust the from the amount which was lying in the CPF/GPF , as per Rules and Schemes. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in judgment and Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala 25.11.2024 passed by learned Additional upheld. Accordingly, the present regular Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes : Yes 7 and was in urgent need of money, therefore, she withdrew the A perusal of the whole record as well as facts and circumstances of this particular case shows that the respondent was unnecessarily harassed for adjusted on record. University as per record shows that the sity intentionally never wanted to release the pension to the or to give notice regarding deficient amount before taking such harsh step of stopping adjust the /GPF judgment and Patiala dditional the present regular Decree sheet be prepared GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document