CMs-2886-87-LPA-2026 IN/AND -1- LPA-1182-2026 (O&M) 116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CMs-2886-87-LPA-2026 IN/AND LPA-1182-2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 20.07.2026 ASHUTOSH PAUL AND OTHERS ......APPELLANTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .........RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate, for the applicants-appellant. ***** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(ORAL) CM-2887-LPA-2026 (i) Prayer in the present application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of a delay of 7 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 7 days in filing the accompanying appeal is hereby condoned. (iii) CM stands disposed of. CM-2886-LPA-2026 (i) Application for exemption is allowed, as prayed for. LPA-1182-2026 (O&M) 1. In the present appeal, challenge is to the order dated 06.03.2026 passed in CWP-20535-2023, titled Rajesh Vasudev and others vs. Union of India and others, decided on 06.03.2026 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the claim of the appellants seeking the benefit of enhanced pension from the Office of the Provident Fund has been rejected. NITIN 2026.07.27 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CMs-2886-87-LPA-2026 IN/AND -2- LPA-1182-2026 (O&M) 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that till the year 2017, no option was invited from the appellant and, therefore, the question of non-submission of the option up to 01.09.2024 in terms of proviso 2 paragraph 11 (3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 does not arise. It is contended that this aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge in its correct perspective. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper-book carefully. 4. It may be noticed that the issue raised in the present appeal also came up for consideration before this Court in LPA No. 3764 of 2025 titled Ram Nath and others vs. Union of India and others, decided on 24.12.2025. The relevant observations made therein, which have also been reproduced by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, read as under:- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx “3. Relying upon the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge dismissed the claim of the petitioners on the ground that within the permissible period i.e. up to 01.09.2014, none of the petitioners had exercised any option, and that after the said cut-off date, it was not open to them to do so. 4. Though learned counsel for the appellants attempted to distinguish the case on the ground that the judgment in Sunil Kumar B. (supra) is not applicable, we are not persuaded to accept such contention. We find that the findings recorded in paragraph 8, read together with the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 44, clearly foreclose any NITIN 2026.07.27 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CMs-2886-87-LPA-2026 IN/AND -3- LPA-1182-2026 (O&M) avenue available to the appellants to exercise the option after the cut-off date. 5. In that view of the matter, the instant appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.” xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid judgment would show that the option under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 was required to be exercised on or before 01.09.2014. Those who exercised the option within the stipulated period were held entitled to the benefit, whereas the remaining persons were held ineligible for the grant of the said benefit. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that no such option was exercised by the appellants on or before 01.09.2014. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench in Ram Nath's case (supra). 7. Thus, this Court finds no merit in the prayer for setting aside the judgment dated 06.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Finding no illegality in the aforesaid judgment, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE JULY 20, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No NITIN 2026.07.27 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document