{"id":219985,"date":"2008-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-15T22:18:13","modified_gmt":"2017-11-15T16:48:13","slug":"jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Jagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Jagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008<\/div>\n
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                         AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                    Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004\n                    Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008\n\nJagjit Singh\n\n                                                                   ... Petitioner\n\n                                    Versus\n\nManaging Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation\nand another\n                                                            ... Respondents\n\nCORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA\n\nPresent:       Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.\n               Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondents.\n\nKANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
               By way of this common Judgment, ten cases viz. (1) CWP<\/p>\n
No.14562 of 2004 titled ‘Jagjit Singh v. Managing Director, Pepsu Road<\/p>\n
Transport Corporation, Patiala<\/a> (hereinafter referred to as ‘PRTC’); (2) CWP<\/p>\n
No. 14714 of 2004 titled ‘Gurnam Singh v. Managing Director, PRTC and<\/a><\/p>\n
another’ (3) CWP No. 7844 of 2004 titled ‘Manohar Lal v. PRTC and<\/p>\n
others’ (4) CWP No. 5552 of 2004 titled ‘Kapoor Singh v. PRTC and others’<\/p>\n
(5) CWP No. 13017 of 1999 titled ‘Harchand Singh and others v. State of<\/p>\n
Punjab and<\/a> another’ (6) CWP No.14738 of 2004 titled ‘Kartar Singh v.<\/p>\n
Managing Director, PRTC and another’ (7) CWP No. 8052 of 1999 titled<\/p>\n
‘Sukhdev Ram and others v. PRTC’ (8) CWP No. 13441 of 2005 titled<\/p>\n
‘Mohinder Singh v. Managing Director, PRTC and<\/a> another’ (9) CWP No.<\/p>\n
14577 of 2004 titled ‘Sher Chand v. Managing Director PRTC and another’<\/p>\n
and (10) CWP No. 482 of 2006 titled ‘Sukhbir Kaur v. Managing Director<\/p>\n
PRTC and another’ will be decided together. As the legal issue involved<\/p>\n
and the controversy raised on the broad facts is similar, therefore, for<\/p>\n
facility reference facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.14562 of
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
2004 ‘Jagjit Singh v. Managing Director, PRTC’. However, as and where on<\/p>\n
minor details facts differ they will also be noticed in this judgment qua each<\/p>\n
writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                 PRTC is a Government corporation operating a State transport<\/p>\n
undertaking on the national state highways and on other notified routes in<\/p>\n
notified areas. It has a fleet of many buses and for that, it has employed<\/p>\n
staff of drivers, conductors, other establishment staff and mechanical staff<\/p>\n
in the workshops.\n<\/p>\n
                 CWP No.14562 of 2004 has been preferred by Jagjit Singh<\/p>\n
seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of order dated<\/p>\n
13th July, 2004 (Annexure P-5), whereby pension was declined and he was<\/p>\n
disbursed Contributory Provident Fund, on the ground that the impugned<\/p>\n
order (Annexure P-5) is erroneous, arbitrary and discriminatory and against<\/p>\n
the principle of fair play and has been passed in order to deprive lawful<\/p>\n
retiral\/ pensionary benefits to the petitioner. A further direction has been<\/p>\n
sought that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the<\/p>\n
respondents to release pension to the petitioner and grant pensionary<\/p>\n
benefits in terms of Regulation framed by the PRTC on 15th June, 1992<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-2).\n<\/p>\n
                 The case set out by the petitioner is that he joined PRTC on<\/p>\n
09.04.1964 as a Conductor on regular basis. He was promoted to the post<\/p>\n
of Chief Inspector on 24th April, 2000. Petitioner claimed that his work and<\/p>\n
conduct remained satisfactory to the expectations of the employer and he<\/p>\n
earned no adverse remarks. After putting in service for 37 years, with an<\/p>\n
unblemished service record, he attained the age of superannuation and<\/p>\n
retired from service of PRTC on 31.12.2001. Petitioner, in order to build his<\/p>\n
case, has placed reliance and invoked various provisions of Pepsu Road<\/p>\n
Transport Corporation Employees Pension\/ Gratuity & General Provident
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
Fund Regulations, 1992. These Regulations have been attached as<\/p>\n
Annexure P-2. Since in the various other connected writ petitions,<\/p>\n
Annexures will be different therefore hereinafter they will be called<\/p>\n
‘Regulations 1992’. These Regulations with the previous sanction of the<\/p>\n
State Government were enacted for grant of retiral benefits to the<\/p>\n
employees of PRTC.\n<\/p>\n
              As per Clause 1 of Chapter 1, these Regulations were to come<\/p>\n
into force w.e.f. 15th June, 1992. Definition Clause 2 (a) defines the<\/p>\n
Average Emoluments to mean ‘average calculated upon the emoluments of<\/p>\n
the last ten months of qualifying service’. Competent authority has been<\/p>\n
described as ‘Managing Director of the Corporation’. As per Clause 2 (d),<\/p>\n
fund means (i) Pension and Gratuity fund and (ii) General Provident Fund.<\/p>\n
Clause 2(h) defines pension and it has been stated that pension, gratuity<\/p>\n
and other retirement benefits will be admissible to the employees of PRTC<\/p>\n
on Government pattern. As per Clause 3 of Chapter 2, these Regulations<\/p>\n
have been made applicable to the employees of PRTC, who were\/ are<\/p>\n
appointed on or after the date of issue of Regulations on whole time and<\/p>\n
regular basis and important being for the Court is ‘who were working<\/p>\n
immediately before the date of issue of Regulations and opt for these<\/p>\n
Regulations’. As per Chapter 2 Clause 3 Sub-clause (2), these<\/p>\n
Regulations were not to apply to the employees, who opt out of these<\/p>\n
Regulations and various other categories, which, for the Court, are not<\/p>\n
material. Since the dispute in these writ petitions revolves around<\/p>\n
exercising the option, therefore those limited portions are being noticed.<\/p>\n
Chapter 2 Clause 4 gives mode of exercise of option. Therefore, it will be<\/p>\n
apposite here to reproduce the same, which reads as under:<\/p>\n
              “4.    Exercise of option: The option under clause (ii) of
\n       the sub-rule (1) of Regulation 3 shall be exercised in duplicate
\n       in writing in Form-I so as to reach the Managing Director as
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
       forwarded by General Manager in case of depots and
\n       Administrative Officer in the case of headquarter with his
\n       counter-signatures within a period of six months from the date
\n       of issue of these Regulations.<\/p>\n
               Provided that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (i)     in the case of an employee, who on the date of issue of
\n       these Regulations was abroad or on leave, the option shall be
\n       exercised within a period of six months from the date of taking
\n       the charge of his post.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (ii)    where an employee is under suspension, on the date of
\n       issue of these regulations the option shall be exercised within
\n       a period of six months from the date of his joining the duty.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (iii)   an option once exercised shall be final provide the
\n       concerned employee deposit the Corporation’s share of C.P.
\n       fund received by him\/taken in advance, if any, within a period
\n       of six months from the date of issue of Regulations and if a
\n       person fails to exercise his option under the said regulations,
\n       within the specified period referred to above, it shall be
\n       deemed that he has opted to continue for the existing
\n       Contributor Provident Fund benefit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (iv)    an employee who dies on or after the date of issue of
\n       these regulations and who could not exercise his option the
\n       legal heir of such employee, who is entitled to receive
\n       retirement benefits under the said regulations, shall exercise
\n       option, subject to the condition that the legal heir shall have to
\n       deposit the amount of Corporation’s share of C.P. Fund
\n       received by the deceased employee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (v)     The employee recruited after the introduction of said
\n       Pension Regulations will be covered under these regulations.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                A perusal of Clause 2, reproduced above, makes it<\/p>\n
abundantly clear that an employee has to exercise his option within six<\/p>\n
months from the date of issuance of Regulations or in case of any disability<\/p>\n
which he suffers, within six months from the date on which disability is<\/p>\n
cured. Option is also dependent upon the fact that an employee has to<\/p>\n
deposit Corporation’s share of Contributory Provident Fund received by
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
him or taken as advance within a period of six months from the date of<\/p>\n
issuance of Regulations. Importantly, it says that in case an employee fails<\/p>\n
to exercise his option, he shall be deemed to have opted to continue for the<\/p>\n
existing Contributory Provident Fund benefit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Till these Pension Regulations were enacted, employees of<\/p>\n
the PRTC were governed by Contributory Provident Fund. Minimum<\/p>\n
statutory portion of the salary was to be deducted for contribution towards<\/p>\n
provident fund (employee may deposit more voluntarily) and PRTC being<\/p>\n
employer, has also to contribute its share. In this manner, the corpus of<\/p>\n
fund for each employee was created for the benefit of that employee, which<\/p>\n
was to be paid to him on the date of superannuation and he was not<\/p>\n
entitled to any pension. In the Pension Regulations Scheme, those who<\/p>\n
opted to forego a lumpsum amount at the time of retirement in shape of<\/p>\n
CPF, were to be given pension as per the 1992 Regulations.<\/p>\n
              It can be noticed that for becoming a member of the Pension<\/p>\n
Scheme, an employee was called upon to do following two things:<\/p>\n
       (i)    To exercise his option within six months or within the time<\/p>\n
              extended from time to time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (ii)   To deposit back any amount taken by him from the PRTC out<\/p>\n
              of     Contributory    Provident   Fund   as   advance    out       of<\/p>\n
              Corporation’s share.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              These Regulations also give procedure, method and formula<\/p>\n
regarding calculation of pension and gratuity for the retiring employee.<\/p>\n
Another important Clause to be noticed for us is Clause 20, which reads as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
              \"20.    Subscription      and   maintenance    of   General\n                      Provident Fund Accounts:\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                         6<\/span>\n\n\n\n              (1)     The employees, who were appointed on or after\n<\/pre>\n
       the commencement of these regulations and also to the other
\n       existing employees, who opt for those regulations shall
\n       contribute towards the General Provident Fund at the rate
\n       prescribed by the Punjab Government for their employees. An
\n       employee may, however, subscribe voluntarily at higher rate
\n       than that prescribed by the Punjab Government. The fund
\n       shall be regulated in accordance with the rules and procedure
\n       to be prescribed by the Punjab Government from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
              (2)     The date of switchover for the existing employees
\n       to General Provident Fund shall be date of issue of these
\n       Regulations. The Corporation shall maintain the General
\n       Provident Fund Accounts Head Office level.\n<\/p>\n
              (3)     An employee may be sanctioned an advance out
\n       of his own share (General Provident Fund) for transfer to
\n       Pension and Gratuity Fund to meet with his liability of advance
\n       taken by him out of the Employer’s share of Contributory
\n       Provident Fund.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Clause 20, Sub-clause (3) states that an employee can be<\/p>\n
sanctioned advance out of his own share of GPF for transfer to pension<\/p>\n
and gratuity fund to meet his liability of advance taken by him out of the<\/p>\n
employer’s share of Contributory Provident Fund. Chapter 6 contain Clause<\/p>\n
24 regarding adjustment of recovery of dues, which reads as under:<\/p>\n
              “24.    Adjustment and Recovery of dues:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (1)     The competent authority shall take steps to
\n       assess the dues outstanding against the employees two years
\n       before   the    date   on    which he   is   due    to   retire   on
\n       superannuation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (2)     The assessment of the outstanding dues against
\n       the employees shall be completed by the competent authority
\n       eight months prior to the date of his retirement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (3)     The dues as assessed including those dues
\n       which come to the notice subsequently and which remain
\n       outstanding till the date of retirement of the employee, shall be
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
       adjusted against the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity
\n       becoming payable to the employee on his retirement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (4)    When an employee retires from service, an office
\n       order shall be issued to that effect by the competent authority.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Present petitioner has averred that he served a legal notice<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-3) on 28th November, 2003 upon PRTC. It is stated therein<\/p>\n
that he had exercised his option and the same was submitted through the<\/p>\n
General Manager, Bathinda Depot, where he was working in 1992-93. it<\/p>\n
has been further stated that he was called upon to deposit an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.13,000\/-, the amount of provident fund advance, which stood drawn out<\/p>\n
of PRTC’s share of Contributory Provident Fund during the months of<\/p>\n
August and October, 1990. It was further stated that he had requested the<\/p>\n
authorities that since there is a balance of just equal amount of Rs.13,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
on account of his share of Contributory Provident Fund, as per the return<\/p>\n
issued by the PRTC in 1993, the whole amount be adjusted against the<\/p>\n
permanent advance. In the notice he further averred that he has been<\/p>\n
made to understand that he has not been made member of the Pension<\/p>\n
Scheme because he has not refunded the amount and had failed to<\/p>\n
deposit the balance. It further states that notice (Annexure P-3) was not<\/p>\n
considered and petitioner was compelled to file Civil Writ Petition No.7483<\/p>\n
of 2004 and the same was disposed off by passing the following order:<\/p>\n
              \"Present:     Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the\n                            petitioner.\n\n<\/pre>\n
              Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would
\n       be satisfied if respondent No.1 is directed to decide the legal
\n       notice (Annexure P-3) sent to him by the Advocate of the
\n       petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
              The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
\n       respondent No.1 to take a decision on the legal notice
\n       (Annexure P-3), by passing a speaking order in accordance
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
       with law within a period of two months of the receipt of a
\n       certified copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
              Copy of this order be given Dasti to the learned counsel
\n       for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    Sd\/- S.S. Nijjar
\n                                                          Judge<\/p>\n
                                                    Sd\/- J.S. Narang
\n                                                           Judge
\n       13.5.2004″\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              In pursuance of the above reproduced order (Annexure P-4),<\/p>\n
the Corporation decided the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-5). In Annexure P-5, it has been stated that period for<\/p>\n
exercising the option was extended time and again on the demand of the<\/p>\n
Union of employees and finally, it was extended upto 28th April, 1993. Since<\/p>\n
the petitioner failed to deposit the amount of employer’s share taken as a<\/p>\n
non-refundable advance along with upto date interest, even during the<\/p>\n
extended period, therefore, his option for pension was not considered valid<\/p>\n
and was rejected, and this fact was conveyed to the employee on 15th<\/p>\n
February, 1993. The relevant para of the impugned order, due to which<\/p>\n
employee was not included as member of the pension scheme, reads as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
              “Shri Jagjit Singh Inspector failed to deposit the amount
\n       of Employers share taken as Non Refundable Advance along
\n       with upto date interest even during the extended period. No
\n       doubt Shri Jagjit Singh, Inspector opted the PRTC Pension
\n       Scheme, 1992, but, he failed to deposit the amount of
\n       Advance of Rs.8889\/- (i.e. Amount of Advance + interest
\n       accrued thereon upto 12\/92 – Amount of CPF his own share
\n       standing at his credit) Rs.13000 + 4535 – 8646 = Rs.8889,
\n       which was mandatory as per Sub Rule-III of Regulations 4 and
\n       Regulations 3(2)(h) of said Regulations of 1992.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
              In the writ petition, petitioner has relied upon the case of one<\/p>\n
Hari Singh, Driver, who according to the petitioner had filed a civil suit<\/p>\n
claimed pensionary benefits w.e.f. 15th June, 1992. Petitioner has relied<\/p>\n
upon a judgment of a District Judge given in favour of Hari Singh<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-6). A perusal of the judgment (Annexure P-6) shows that<\/p>\n
District Judge drew support from two judgments viz. Smt. Usha Dogra v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Central Bank of India, 2002 (4) SCT 583 and Sridhar Malik v. Haryana<\/p>\n
State Electricity Board, 2002 (3) SCT 1096, wherein, in a similar issue,<\/p>\n
an employees were called to deposit the amount and the Corporation was<\/p>\n
held entitled to charge interest @ 9 percent per annum, which the<\/p>\n
petitioners in those writ petitions were required to pay and the District<\/p>\n
Judge concluded as under:\n<\/p>\n
              “The respondents would issue demand notice to the
\n       appellant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy
\n       of this judgment as to how much amount of C.P. Fund
\n       (Corporation share) should be paid by him (appellant) so as to
\n       avail the benefit of pension scheme. They would be at liberty
\n       to charge interest on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum,
\n       which the appellant is supposed to pay. On receipt of the
\n       demand notice, the appellant will deposit the amount as
\n       mentioned in the demand notice within one month along with
\n       option and on receipt of the amount and option, the
\n       respondents would give the benefit of pensionary scheme to
\n       the appellant and take a decision within three months
\n       thereafter.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Petitioner further relied that like Hari Singh’s case, one<\/p>\n
Balwant Singh had also filed a civil suit and the trial Court directed Balwant<\/p>\n
Singh plaintiff to refund the share of Contributory Provident Fund with 9<\/p>\n
percent interest. Aggrieved against the same, the Corporation had filed a<\/p>\n
Regular Second Appeal and the same was dismissed. Reliance has also<\/p>\n
been placed upon a judgment of this Court in PRTC v. Balwant Singh,
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
reported in 2007 (1) SCT 828, wherein the judgments of two courts below,<\/p>\n
giving directions that plaintiff would refund the employer’s share of<\/p>\n
Contributory Provident Fund with 9 percent interest, were upheld. Petitioner<\/p>\n
further states that case of Hari Singh Driver has attained finality. Petitioner<\/p>\n
has also relied upon another judgment of this Court in Baldev Singh,<\/p>\n
retired driver v. PRTC, CWP No. 2911 of 1997, decided on August 11,<\/p>\n
1997. Besides, petitioner has also placed reliance on PRTC v. Sant Ram<\/p>\n
Fitter, RSA No. 2173 of 2004, decided on 25th May, 2004, wherein it was<\/p>\n
held that no notice was given to Sant Ram Fitter, therefore, he could not<\/p>\n
exercise his option and was unable to make repayment of non-refundable<\/p>\n
advance. In the Regular Second Appeal so decided, it was observed as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “The amount of the advance could even be deducted
\n       from the Provident Fund of the plaintiff, which was still lying
\n       with the Corporation, Clause 24 of the Regulations states
\n       about the “adjustments and recovery of dues”. In sub-clause
\n       (3), it has been mentioned that where any amount remained
\n       outstanding till the date of retirement of the employee, the
\n       same shall be adjusted in the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity
\n       becoming payable to the employee on his retirement.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              This judgment has been attached as Annexure P-8. It has<\/p>\n
been stated that when this judgment became final, the SLP preferred by<\/p>\n
the PRTC, bearing No. 19752 of 2004 titled as ‘PRTC v. Sant Ram and<\/p>\n
others’, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 01.10.2004. A<\/p>\n
fleeting mention has been made to the judgments as in the petition,<\/p>\n
reliance has been placed upon them. Case law, their ratio and facts shall<\/p>\n
be considered later. No written statement has been filed in CWP No. 14562<\/p>\n
of 2004 ‘Jagjit Singh v. Managing Director, PRTC’. During the course of<\/p>\n
arguments, it has been admitted that Jagjit Singh, on retirement had
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
received the entire amount of Contributory Provident Fund after the<\/p>\n
retirement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Civil Writ Petition No. 14714 of 2004
\n‘Gurnam Singh v. Managing Director, PRTC’<\/p>\n
              Similar<\/a> prayer, as made by Jagjit Singh, has been renewed in<\/p>\n
this writ petition. Petitioner herein has stated that he was appointed as<\/p>\n
conductor on 20.05.1965 on regular basis. He was promoted to the post of<\/p>\n
Inspector on 25.01.1994 and he retired on 30.04.2003 on attaining the age<\/p>\n
of superannuation. Petitioner has served legal notice on 10.02.2004<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-3), placing reliance upon 1992 Regulations. In the legal<\/p>\n
notice, it was stated that he had exercised his option through the General<\/p>\n
Manager, Sangrur Depot, to opt for Pension Scheme. He was called upon<\/p>\n
to deposit Rs.30,000\/-, the amount of permanent advance, which he had<\/p>\n
drawn out of PRTC’s share of Contributory Provident Fund. In the reply<\/p>\n
thereto, he requested PRTC that balance of equal amount of Rs.30,000\/-<\/p>\n
on account of the share, as far as Contributory Provident Fund is<\/p>\n
concerned, as per the return 1992-93, be adjusted. Legal notice was not<\/p>\n
decided, therefore, petitioner also filed Civil Writ Petition No.7509 of 2004.<\/p>\n
A direction was given to decide the legal notice. The Corporation, vide<\/p>\n
impugned order (Annexure P-5) stated that Gurnam Singh had failed to<\/p>\n
deposit the amount of employer’s share taken as non-refundable advance<\/p>\n
along with upto date interest, even during the extended period. It held that<\/p>\n
even though the employee has opted for PRTC Pension Scheme, but he<\/p>\n
failed to deposit the amount of advance of Rs.9845\/-. No written statement<\/p>\n
has been filed. During the course of arguments, it has been admitted that<\/p>\n
Gurnam Singh, on retirement had received the entire amount of<\/p>\n
Contributory Provident Fund after the retirement.<\/p>\n
Civil Writ Petition No. 7844 of 2004
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
‘Manohar Lal v. PRTC and others’<\/p>\n
              This writ petition has been preferred by Manohar Lal with a<\/p>\n
similar prayer. In this case, petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 2nd<\/p>\n
February, 1971 and he retired voluntarily w.e.f. 31st May, 2001.<\/p>\n
              Petitioner was denied the pensionary benefits on the ground<\/p>\n
that he had failed to deposit Rs.500\/- taken by him as non-refundable loan<\/p>\n
in July 1986. It has been stated in the writ petition that though the petitioner<\/p>\n
had duly informed the respondents to deduct the said amount from his<\/p>\n
salary, as at that time he was in service, but said amount was not adjusted.<\/p>\n
It is further stated that petitioner was asked to give option under 1992<\/p>\n
Regulations (Annexure P-2) and in response thereto, petition has given his<\/p>\n
option for pensionary benefits under Regulations 1992.<\/p>\n
Civil Writ Petition No. 5552 of 2004
\n‘Kapoor Singh v. PRTC and others’<\/p>\n
              This writ petition has been filed by Kapoor Singh. A similar<\/p>\n
prayer has been renewed by him also.\n<\/p>\n
              Case of the petitioner is that he retired as Inspector in PRTC,<\/p>\n
Faridkot Depot. He has been denied pensionary benefits vide order dated<\/p>\n
03.01.2003 (Annexure P-1), as he had failed to deposit Rs.14,000\/- along<\/p>\n
with interest, taken by him before coming into force of the scheme, as a<\/p>\n
loan. Petitioner claimed that he is also entitled to become a member of<\/p>\n
Pension Scheme as per Pension Regulations 1992. Date of retirement of<\/p>\n
the petitioner is 24th April, 2001. Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated<\/p>\n
03.01.2003 (Annexure P-1), wherein he was denied the benefit of Pension<\/p>\n
Scheme 1992 on the ground that he had to return the amount with interest<\/p>\n
upto 14.12.1992, which was received by him as non-refundable loan.<\/p>\n
Petitioner has also relied upon a Division Bench Judgment rendered in
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
Baldev Singh’s case, on which mention has been made while noticing the<\/p>\n
facts of Jagjit Singh’s case.\n<\/p>\n
\nCivil Writ Petition No. 13017 of 2004
\n‘Harchand Singh and others v. State of Punjab and<\/a> another’<\/p>\n
              This writ petition has been filed by eight employees of PRTC.<\/p>\n
They have also prayed for grant of Pension as per Regulations 1992. Like<\/p>\n
other cases, petitioners herein had also taken loan for building house and<\/p>\n
some other purposes, against the amount in their provident funds. Their<\/p>\n
case is that after retirement, Contributory Provident Fund has been paid to<\/p>\n
them after deducting the amount of loan, thus, on the date of retirement no<\/p>\n
loan was due from them. These petitioners have retired in the years 1995,<\/p>\n
1996, 1998 and 1999. They are aggrieved against the order (Annexure P-<\/p>\n
2), wherein it was stated that they were liable to return the amount of loan<\/p>\n
upto the share of PRTC out of the Contributory Provident Fund with interest<\/p>\n
within six months from the enforcement of Regulations upto 14.12.1992.<\/p>\n
They have failed to do so, hence they were not entitled to Pension<\/p>\n
Scheme. PRTC had filed written statement, in which it has been stated that<\/p>\n
since they failed to deposit the amount of advance taken by them out of the<\/p>\n
employer’s share of Contributory Provident Fund along with interest<\/p>\n
thereon within the stipulated period, therefore, they are not entitled to<\/p>\n
pension under the Pension Scheme framed by PRTC in year 1992.<\/p>\n
Petitioners herein have also been paid the entire amount of Contributory<\/p>\n
Provident Fund when they retired.\n<\/p>\n
\nCivil Writ Petition No. 14738 of 2004
\n‘Kartar Singh v. Managing Director, PRTC and another’<\/p>\n
              This writ petition has been preferred by Kartar Singh son of<\/p>\n
Chander Singh. Like Jagjit Singh, whose facts have been given
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
hereinbefore, Kartar Singh also seeks the same relief. He joined PRTC as<\/p>\n
Conductor in 15.12.1967 on regular basis. He was promoted to the post of<\/p>\n
Inspector on 18.09.2000. After rendering 32 years of service, he retired on<\/p>\n
26.12.2001. He has also placed reliance on Pension Regulations 1992. He<\/p>\n
had also served a legal notice (Annexure P-3), which was ordered to be<\/p>\n
decided by this Court, vide order (Annexure P-4). His claim has been<\/p>\n
declined by the PRTC on the ground that he failed to deposit the amount of<\/p>\n
arrears on the share taken as non-refundable advance along with upto date<\/p>\n
interest even during the extended period. It was stated that even though he<\/p>\n
opted for PRTC Pension Scheme 1992, he failed to deposit the amount of<\/p>\n
advance of Rs.10068\/-. He has also placed reliance upon Hari Singh’s<\/p>\n
case, Baldev Singh’s case, Sant Ram Fitter’s case and dismissal of SLP.<\/p>\n
Written statement has been filed, wherein it has been stated that he<\/p>\n
received total amount of Contributory Provident Fund amounting to<\/p>\n
Rs.3,39,609\/- on 19.03.2002 vide a cheque issued by PRTC. He share of<\/p>\n
employee was Rs.1,94,204\/- and the share of PRTC was Rs.1,45,405\/-.<\/p>\n
Civil Writ Petition No. 8052 of 1999
\n‘Sukhdev Ram and others v. PRTC’<\/p>\n
              This writ petition has been preferred by 66 employees. They<\/p>\n
are also aggrieved against the action of PRTC in rejecting their option and<\/p>\n
holding that they are not eligible to become members of Pension Scheme<\/p>\n
1992. A Chart (Annexure P-1) has been attached, wherein the date of<\/p>\n
appointment and amount of loan has been mentioned. They have been<\/p>\n
also denied pension on the ground that they failed to deposit non-<\/p>\n
refundable advance along with interest before the specified date. Written<\/p>\n
statement has been filed, wherein it was stated that these employees were<\/p>\n
under the legal obligation to refund the amount of loan taken from the<\/p>\n
employer’s share along with upto date interest within the stipulated period.
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                    15<\/span><\/p>\n
It has been stated that in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in<\/p>\n
Executive Engineer HSEB v. Dharam Singh and others<\/a>, 2005 (2) RSJ<\/p>\n
364, they cannot become members of PRTC Pension Scheme 1992. It has<\/p>\n
been stated that these all employees have received the amount of their<\/p>\n
Contributory Provident Fund Pension Scheme after their retirement.<\/p>\n
Civil Writ Petition No. 13441 of 2005
\n‘Mohinder Singh v. Managing Director, PRTC and<\/a> another’<\/p>\n
              This writ petition has been filed by Mohinder Singh against the<\/p>\n
Managing Director, PRTC. His grievance is that even though he had<\/p>\n
deposited Rs.20,000\/- of advance along with interest, he has not been<\/p>\n
extended benefit of Pension Scheme. Mohinder Singh petitioner stated that<\/p>\n
he joined PRTC in year 1974 as a driver on regular basis. After putting in<\/p>\n
26 years of service, he retired after attaining the age of superannuation on<\/p>\n
31.01.2001. It is stated that he had exercised the option to become<\/p>\n
member of Pension Scheme and also deposited Rs.20,000\/-, the amount<\/p>\n
taken by him as Contributory Provident Fund advance. Therefore, he states<\/p>\n
that he is entitled to pension as per Regulations 1992 (Annexure P-2). He<\/p>\n
has also served legal notice (Annexure P-3). No written statement has<\/p>\n
been filed by PRTC.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Writ Petition No. 14577 of 2004
\n‘Sher Chand v. Managing Director PRTC and another’<\/p>\n
              This writ petition ,has been preferred by Sher Chand. He<\/p>\n
seeks quashing of order dated 13.07.2004 (Annexure P-4). He has<\/p>\n
renewed the same prayer as by Jagjit Singh. His case is that he was<\/p>\n
appointed as Conductor on regular basis on 01.05.1970. He was promoted<\/p>\n
as Sub Inspector on 27.11.2001 and after putting in 32 years of service, he<\/p>\n
retired on 30.06.2002. He had served a legal notice. This Court directed to
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                    16<\/span><\/p>\n
decide the legal notice as claim had been rejected vide Annexure P-4 on<\/p>\n
the ground that he failed to deposit the amount of non-refundable advance<\/p>\n
along with upto date interest, even during the extended period. It was<\/p>\n
stated that he failed to deposit the advance of Rs.12,511\/-. In the written<\/p>\n
statement filed, it has been stated that he has not deposited the amount of<\/p>\n
advance along with interest upto 28.04.2003, therefore, he is not entitled to<\/p>\n
become a member of Pension Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\nCivil Writ Petition No. 482 of 2006
\n‘Sukhbir Kaur v. Managing Director PRTC and another’<\/p>\n
              Petitioner herein also renewed the same prayer that he be<\/p>\n
granted pensionary benefits in terms of Regulations 1992, as her husband<\/p>\n
Balbir Singh had joined the service of PRTC as Conductor in the year 1965<\/p>\n
and he was promoted as Inspector and Balbir Singh had retired in<\/p>\n
September, 2001 and died on 08.06.2003. A perusal of the averments<\/p>\n
made in the writ petition reveals that the amount of Contributory Provident<\/p>\n
Fund has been received by the husband of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
              I have heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent PRTC. Number of writ petitions and regular second appeals<\/p>\n
have been filed by the similarly situated employees of PRTC. A common<\/p>\n
feature in the judgments already rendered in writ petitions and the regular<\/p>\n
second appeals, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are that the<\/p>\n
employees of PRTC were not individually got noted the scheme, the fact<\/p>\n
that they had to exercise the option, to refund the amount of non-<\/p>\n
refundable advance taken by them out of the Corporation’s share. Taking<\/p>\n
these to be material flaw, it was ordered that all employees, whose cases<\/p>\n
have been decided, will refund the amount along with Contributory<\/p>\n
Provident Fund received by them with 9 percent interest and will be<\/p>\n
granted pension.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                        17<\/span><\/p>\n
              Numerous judgments of Division Bench, Single Bench in<\/p>\n
regular second appeals including a case of Sant Ram Fitter, in which SLP<\/p>\n
was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, have been noticed by a<\/p>\n
Coordinate Bench of this Court in PRTC v. Balwant Singh, 2007 (1) SCT<\/p>\n
828, in which it has been held as under:\n<\/p>\n
              “5. After considering the aforesaid regulations the trial
\n       court decreed the suit of the plaintiff taking a view that grant of
\n       pension was fulfillment of constitutional promise and pension
\n       therefore could not be denied on technical objections. The trial
\n       court placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this
\n       Court in Smt. Usha Dogra v. Central Bank of India,
\n       reported as 2002(4) SCT 583 and a Single Bench judgment
\n       of this Court in the case of Sridhar Malik v. Haryana State
\n       Electricity Board, reported as 2002(3) SCT 1096 wherein
\n       under similar circumstances directions had been given to
\n       grant pension to the petitioners in those cases. Accordingly
\n       the trial court decreed the suit and held the plaintiff entitled to
\n       pension, commuted pension and other benefits subject to the
\n       condition that the plaintiff would refund the amount of
\n       Contributory Provident Fund (Corporation’s share) along with
\n       interest at the rate of 9% per annum. This was to be done
\n       after the defendants had served a notice on the plaintiff
\n       quantifying the amount payable by him. On receipt of the
\n       notice the plaintiff would deposit the amount as also an option
\n       for receipt of pension and the Corporation would then give
\n       benefit of pension under the Pension Regulations to the
\n       plaintiff. This judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the
\n       lower appellate court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       6.     Shri Arun Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the
\n       appellant contends that the plaintiff is not entitled for pension
\n       under the Pension Regulations as firstly he had never opted
\n       for the same by exercising a valid option. Secondly referring to
\n       Clause 3(2)(h) the learned counsel contends that he did not
\n       even deposit the balance amount of advance taken by him
\n       from out of the Employees’ share of the Contributory Provident
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                         18<\/span><\/p>\n
       Fund along with interest and thus was not entitled for pension
\n       on this ground also.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       7.     I however find no merit in this contention. It has come in
\n       the evidence of DW-1 Raj Kumar that notice regarding
\n       exercise of option was not served personally on the plaintiff.
\n       This is so recorded by the trial court in Para 9 of the judgment
\n       and the relevant observation is as hereunder :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              ‘…..He further stated that the plaintiff is now drawing his
\n              pension which is known as CPF pension. In his cross-
\n              examination DW1 Raj Kumar admitted that notice
\n              regarding exercising the option was not served
\n              personally on the plaintiff.’\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       8.     The lower appellate court also on examination of
\n       evidence concluded that the defendants had not led any
\n       cogent and convincing evidence to show that the pension
\n       scheme had been circulated amongst the employees of the
\n       Corporation and they were made to understand and note the
\n       same so as to exercise their option. The relevant observations
\n       of the lower appellate court to this effect are as hereunder :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              ‘…..It was therefore, obligatory on the part of the
\n              defendants to have led some cogent and convincing
\n              evidence that the scheme of the pension under the
\n              Regulations was circulated amongst the employees of
\n              the PRTC and they were made to note the same so as
\n              to exercise the option within the specified period, in the
\n              absence of which the averments made by the plaintiff in
\n              the plaint and the same having not been controverted
\n              by the defendants and further a statement in this regard
\n              having been made by the plaintiff as PW1 in his sworn
\n              affidavit, EX.PI, cause the court to hold that the plaintiff
\n              had made exercise of the option of the pension but the
\n              defendants failed to take the necessary action on the
\n              same so as to provide the benefit of the superannuation
\n              pension as provided under Regulation 3 of the
\n              Regulations. It is also important to note that under Sub-
\n              Clause (ii) of Regulation 3, the Regulations had not to
\n              be applied to the employees who opt out of these
\n              regulations. Again there is no evidence to have been led
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                         19<\/span><\/p>\n
              by the defendants that the plaintiff had opted out of the
\n              Regulations.’\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       9.     In the face of this statement and findings I am of the
\n       opinion that since there is no evidence on the record that the
\n       pension scheme had been circulated amongst the employees
\n       and got noted from them the Corporation cannot deny the
\n       benefit of pension under the Pension Regulations to the
\n       plaintiff merely on account of the fact that he had not opted for
\n       the same. In this view of mine I am fortified by the
\n       observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram
\n       Dia and others v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
\n       and<\/a> another reported as 2005(4) SCT 387 which are as
\n       hereunder :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              ‘…..The learned counsel for the respondents failed to
\n              show any material that the circular dated 6.8.1993 was
\n              actually got noted in writing from the petitioners. In the
\n              absence of any such material, it can well be inferred
\n              that the petitioner had no knowledge about the options
\n              called by the respondents vide the aforesaid circular.
\n              Therefore, it is unreasonable to deny the pensionary
\n              benefits to the petitioners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order at
\n              Annexure P4, dated 13.2.2004 is quashed. The
\n              respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to
\n              exercise their option in accordance with their circular
\n              dated 6.8.1993 within a period of one month of receipt
\n              of a certified copy of this order and give them the
\n              consequential benefits within two months thereafter
\n              subject to their fulfilling the conditions of eligibility for
\n              being governed under the aforesaid circular dated
\n              6.8.1993.’\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       10.    Similar view has been taken by another Division Bench
\n       of this Court in Ram Kumar and others v. Uttar Haryana
\n       Bijlli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and others reported as 2006(3)
\n       SCT 628 which is as hereunder :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              ‘The question regarding changing the option after the
\n              time fixed has lapsed has been considered and
\n              necessary permission to change the option has been
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                       20<\/span><\/p>\n
              granted by this Court in other cases. A Division Bench
\n              of this Court in Mahinder Singh v. Executive Engineer
\n              and another, 2005(4) SCT 633, to which once of us
\n              (S.S. Nijjar, J.) was a member, held that unless it is
\n              established that the circular issued for exercise of option
\n              was brought to the notice of the employee he cannot be
\n              denied from exercising the same in the time merely
\n              because he did not do so immediately when the circular
\n              was issued. In the case of Lalu Ram v. State of
\n              Haryana, (C.W.P. No. 2476 of 1997), decided on
\n              9.10.1997, a Division Bench of this Court considered
\n              the case where the employee had not given his option
\n              for adopting the pensionary scheme and had failed to
\n              comply with the conditions imposed therein, that is,
\n              depositing the employer’s share of contribution towards
\n              G.P.F. with upto date interest. It was held by this Court
\n              that the respondents therein had not placed any
\n              material on record to show that the instructions issued
\n              had been got noted in writing from the petitioner in the
\n              said case. In the absence of any such material it was
\n              held that it cannot be assumed that the petitioner while
\n              in service knew about the contests of the instructions
\n              that had been issued. It was noticed that the circular in
\n              question specifically provided that “these instructions
\n              may please be got noted from the employees and
\n              acknowledge the receipt of the letter”. In Hakam Singh,
\n              Driver v. Executive Engineer and another, CWP No.
\n              12758 of 2000), decided on 29.5.2002, another
\n              Division Bench directed the respondents to allow the
\n              petitioners therein to avail the benefit of pensionary
\n              scheme as there was no proof that they were ever
\n              served on the basis of instructions regarding switching
\n              over to the pensionary scheme. In Darshan Singh v.
\n              Chief Accounts Officer, (CWP No. 2402 of 1997),
\n              decided on 27.8.1997, another Division Bench of this
\n              Court allowed the writ petition for computation of the
\n              service rendered by the petitioner therein towards retiral
\n              benefits. The claim of the petitioner was resisted as he
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                       21<\/span><\/p>\n
              had not exercised his option to claim the benefit of
\n              service towards pension. It was, however, held that the
\n              amount deposited by the employer from the date of the
\n              appointment of the petitioner therein till his retirement
\n              along with interest shall be refunded by the petitioner. In
\n              the case in hand also there is no material on record to
\n              show that the circulars dated 6.8.1993 (Annexure P.1)
\n              and 9.8.1994 (Annexure P.2) were brought to the notice
\n              of the petitioners. Therefore, the declining of pension
\n              scheme to the petitioners on account of the fact that
\n              they failed to exercise their option is without basis. The
\n              petitioners would, however, be required to refund the
\n              amount deposited by the employer from the date of their
\n              respective appointments till retirement along with
\n              interest.’\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       11.    Similar view has been taken by another Division Bench
\n       of this Court in Mahinder Singh v. Executive Engineer and
\n       another, 2005(4) SCT 633, Dilwar Singh v. Haryana Power
\n       Generation Corporation Ltd. and others<\/a>, 2006(3) SCT 412
\n       and by a learned Single Judge in Sridhar Malik v. Haryana
\n       State Electricity Board, reported as 2002(3) SCT 1096. In
\n       view of the authoritative pronouncements referred to herein
\n       above I am of the opinion that since no evidence has been
\n       brought on record by the appellant-Corporation to show that
\n       the pension scheme had been got circulated amongst the
\n       employees and got noted from them, pension cannot be
\n       denied to the plaintiff merely on account of the fact that he had
\n       not opted under the Pension Regulations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       12.    In the light of the aforesaid findings since the pension
\n       scheme was never circulated and got noted by the plaintiff he
\n       cannot be denied pension on account of the fact that he had
\n       not deposited the balance amount of loan taken by him from
\n       out of his Contributory Provident Fund. Had it been brought to
\n       his notice he would certainly have deposited a sum of Rs.
\n       4,999\/- outstanding against him. In any case under somewhat
\n       similar circumstances this court in the case of Pepsu Road
\n       Transport Corporation and another v. Sant Ram Fitter,
\n       (Retd.) (RSA No. 2173 of 2004, decided on 25.05.2004) has
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                      22<\/span><\/p>\n
       taken a view that rejection of the claim of plaintiff therein for
\n       pension under this very pension scheme on the ground that
\n       advance from out of GPF was not deposited by the plaintiff in
\n       the light of the fact that no notice was served on the plaintiff
\n       for the same, was arbitrary and illegal. Thus I do not find that
\n       the plaintiff can be denied the benefit of pension on this
\n       ground as well.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       13.    Even otherwise I am of the opinion that the grant of
\n       pension to the citizens and employees is fulfillment of a
\n       constitutional promise under as much as it partakes the
\n       character of public assistance in old age. The pension scheme
\n       thus fulfills this constitutional mandate. The Hon’ble Supreme
\n       Court in the case titled Deokinandan Prasad v. State of
\n       Bihar, AIR<\/a> 1971 Supreme Court page 1409 affirmed the
\n       decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of K.R.
\n       Erry v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 Punjab Page 279 holding
\n       that pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on the
\n       sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that the right
\n       to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable
\n       right vesting in a government servant. This has been the
\n       settled legal position. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subrata
\n       Sen v. Union of India,<\/a> 2001(4) SCT 424 (SC) : 2001(8)
\n       Supreme Court Cases 71 observed as under :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              ‘Payment of pension does not depend upon Pension
\n              Fund. It is the liability undertaken by the Company
\n              under the Rules and whenever becomes due and
\n              payable, is to be paid. As observed in Nakara case
\n              pension is neither a bounty, or a matter of grace
\n              depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an
\n              ex gratia payment. It is a payment for the past services
\n              rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering
\n              socioeconomic justice to those who is they heyday of
\n              their life ceaselessly toiled for the employ on an
\n              assurance that in their old age they would not be left in
\n              the lurch.’\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       14.    Therefore I am of the opinion that in the facts and
\n       circumstances of this case the plaintiff who is a driver in the
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                        23<\/span><\/p>\n
       Corporation cannot be denied the benefit of pension under the
\n       Pension Regulations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       15.    At this stage I may also consider two other contentions
\n       raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned
\n       counsel submits that the claim of the plaintiff should be
\n       dismissed on the ground of limitation. In this regard I may
\n       notice that an issue was framed as to whether the suit is
\n       barred by limitation being issue No. 7. This issue was decided
\n       against the appellant by the trial court. Before the lower
\n       appellate court the findings of the trial court on this issue were
\n       not even challenged. The relevant observations of the lower
\n       appellate court are as hereunder :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              ‘No argument was raised by the Ld. Counsel for the
\n              appellants with regard to the findings returned by the
\n              Ld. Trial Court on issues Nos. 3, 6 and 7. Apparently,
\n              the plaintiff being entitled to the benefit of the pension
\n              on superannuation, he had the locus-standi to file the
\n              suit. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff
\n              had    ever    foregone    his   right   of   pension     on
\n              superannuation by any of his Act and conduct. The
\n              cause of action to file the suit regarding the claim of the
\n              pension being recurring one it could not be argued that
\n              the suit is barred by limitation. I, therefore, affirm the
\n              findings of the trial Court on issues Nos. 3, 6 and 7.’\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       16.    Even otherwise the plaintiff had retired from service on
\n       30.11.2000. He filed the suit on 8.12.2003. The suit was filed
\n       within a period of 38 months. Thus even if the arrears of
\n       pension payable were to be curtailed to a period of three years
\n       and two months prior to the filing of the suit they would be
\n       payable from the date of superannuation of the plaintiff as the
\n       said date falls within 38 months from the filing of the suit. I
\n       thus find no merit in this contention of the learned counsel for
\n       the appellant as well.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       17.    Learned counsel for the appellant then contends that
\n       the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit as he had already
\n       taken the Contributory Provident Fund. Again I may notice that
\n       an issue to this effect was framed by the trial court being issue
\n       No. 6. The said issue was decided against the appellant by
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                           24<\/span><\/p>\n
       the trial court. Before the lower appellate court no argument
\n       was raised on this issue. Even otherwise I am of the opinion
\n       that the plaintiff cannot be denied the benefit of pension under
\n       the Pension Regulations merely on this ground. The trial court
\n       has already given a direction that the plaintiff would refund the
\n       employees’ share of the Contributory Provident Fund with 9%
\n       interest. To substantiate this plea learned counsel for the
\n       appellant has relied upon a judgment of this Court in
\n       Executive Engineer, Haryana State Electricity Board v.
\n       Dharam Singh and others<\/a>, 2005(2) SCT 87 : 2005(2) RSJ\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       364. I have gone through the said judgment. The controversy
\n       in that case primarily was as to whether the employees could
\n       be allowed to shift from the EPF Scheme to the pension
\n       scheme of the Board. The Board in that case had given
\n       opportunity to all the members to shift to the said scheme up
\n       to a particular date in the year 1988. The petitioners therein
\n       had not opted to shift. The judgment records that as
\n       hereunder :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              ‘…..The petitioner should have well opted for the same
\n              at   the   relevant       time   and   deposited   the   entire
\n              contribution of the Board towards EPF, thus, facilitating
\n              the respondent-Board to give him the pensionary
\n              benefits. He did not do so while in service and
\n              continued to enjoy the benefit as it was available to him
\n              at that time. The petitioner even got all the benefits of
\n              EPF Scheme encashed consequent upon his retirement
\n              on 31.8.1991 on attaining the age of superannuation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              He made representation for switching over from EPF
\n              Scheme to GPF Scheme for the first time on 18.6.1997
\n              wherein, he had also shown his willingness to deposit
\n              the entire amount of EPF.’
\n       It was in those peculiar facts and circumstances of that case
\n       that relief was denied to the employees therein. The factual
\n       position in this case is totally different. Thus I find no merit in
\n       this contention raised by the learned counsel as well.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                          25<\/span><\/p>\n
              There is another writ petition titled Bachittar Singh v. PRTC<\/p>\n
and another, CWP No.10285 of 1998 decided by this Court on August 9,<\/p>\n
2007, in which it has been held as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “4.     The petitioner’s plea, advocated before this Court,
\n       is that the refund obtained by him being non-refundable in
\n       character, the denial of pensionary benefits to him on account
\n       of the non-refund of employer’s share is invalid. A plea, raised
\n       in the alternative, is that the respondents could adjust the
\n       amount recoverable from him from out of the total amount
\n       payable to him. There is also a plea that the respondents
\n       cannot be heard to insist upon the averred premise (for denial
\n       of the pensionary benefits to him) as he was never called
\n       upon to refund the employer’s share of the advance obtained
\n       by him from CPF.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              5.      As against it, the plea canvassed on behalf of the
\n       respondents is that a list containing the names of employees
\n       who had obtained non-refundable advance had been put on
\n       the notice board and circulated and if the petitioner did not
\n       notice it, he has to thank his own stars for the consequences
\n       which flow from the non-refund of the employer’s share of the
\n       advance obtained by him from out of his CPF.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              6.      The controversy agitating the parties is squarely
\n       covered by a decision dated 25.5.2004, rendered by a learned
\n       Singe Judge of this Court in RSA No. 2173 of 1994 (Pepsu
\n       Road Transport Corporation and another Versus Sant Ram
\n       Fitter). The following observations made by this Court in that
\n       authority shall prove to be clincher in adjudication of the
\n       controversy:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      ‘Still further, even for the sake of argument if it is
\n              presumed that any notice was served upon the plaintiff,
\n              even then the notice issued to the plaintiff was against
\n              the rules as the plaintiff was asked to refund the amount
\n              within one week from the receipt of the notice, whereas
\n              the stipulated period for refund of the advance was six
\n              months. The amount of the advance could even be
\n              deducted from the Provident Fund of the plaintiff, which
\n              was still lying with the Corporation. Clause 24 of the
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                     26<\/span><\/p>\n
              Regulations states about the “adjustments and recovery
\n              of dues”. In sub-clause (3), it has been mentioned that
\n              where any amount remained outstanding till the date of
\n              retirement of the employee, the same shall be adjusted
\n              in   the   Death-cum-Retirement     Gratuity   becoming
\n              payable to the employee on his retirement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     All these factors go to show that the rejection of
\n              the claim of the plaintiff for the grant of the retiral
\n              benefits under the scheme floated by the Corporation
\n              was an arbitrary and illegal act on the part of the
\n              Corporation.’\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              7.     No law taking a contrary view of facts sought
\n       before this Court.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              It is not disputed that when the 1992 Regulations were<\/p>\n
notified, petitioners were employees of PRTC. The pension is being denied<\/p>\n
to them on the ground that even though they had exercised the option, but<\/p>\n
they had failed to deposit the amount of advance taken by them before the<\/p>\n
stipulated date. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Regulation 24<\/p>\n
given in Chapter 6, where the provision regarding adjustment and recovery<\/p>\n
of dues has been made. It has been stated therein that a competent<\/p>\n
authority shall take steps to assess the dues outstanding against the<\/p>\n
employees, two years before the date, on which he is due to retire on<\/p>\n
superannuation. It has further been held therein that the assessment of<\/p>\n
outstanding dues against the employees shall be completed by the<\/p>\n
competent authority eight months prior to the date of his retirement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Petitioners are being denied benefit of pension scheme on the<\/p>\n
ground that within the stipulated period, they had not paid the advance<\/p>\n
taken by them. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that Regulations<\/p>\n
1992 were enacted to grant pension to employees being a beneficial<\/p>\n
measure. Till the employee retires, Contributory Provident Fund remains<\/p>\n
with the Corporation. As per Clause 24, they can make the assessment two<\/p>\n
years before the retirement and outstanding amount can be deducted,
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                   27<\/span><\/p>\n
especially when the petitioner had opted for Pension Scheme. Therefore,<\/p>\n
on a simple ground that the amount has not been refunded by the<\/p>\n
employee when sufficient amount was lying in his account for adjustment<\/p>\n
as per Clause 24, denial on this score will be too hypertechnical. Once the<\/p>\n
employee has given his option to become a member of the pension<\/p>\n
scheme 1992, then it was incumbent upon the Corporation to adjust the<\/p>\n
amount as per Clause 24 out of the provident fund share before the<\/p>\n
retirement and to make the employee member of the pension scheme.<\/p>\n
              Since it has been noticed in the various regular second<\/p>\n
appeals and the writ petitions preferred by the employees of the<\/p>\n
Corporation that the scheme and the amount due was not got noted<\/p>\n
individually to the employees, therefore it can be safely assumed that the<\/p>\n
averments made by the petitioners in these writ petitions that the amount<\/p>\n
was not disclosed to them before the stipulated date, is to be accepted.<\/p>\n
Had the employees made aware of the amount, which is due, they would<\/p>\n
have paid the amount before the stipulated date. It will be apposite here to<\/p>\n
make reference to Clause 20 Sub-clause (3), which says that an employee<\/p>\n
may be sanctioned an advance out of his own share of General Provident<\/p>\n
Fund for transfer to pension and gratuity fund to meet his liability of<\/p>\n
advance taken by him out of the employer’s share of Contributory<\/p>\n
Provident Fund. Therefore, an employee, in view of Clause 20 (3) and<\/p>\n
Clause 24 had not necessarily to refund the amount by depositing the<\/p>\n
same from his own pocket. Exercising the option that he intend to become<\/p>\n
a member of the pension scheme is sufficient. It was for the Corporation to<\/p>\n
apply Clause 20 (3) and Clause 24 for adjustment of the amount, which an<\/p>\n
employee had to refund.\n<\/p>\n
              Counsel appearing for PRTC has relied upon no other<\/p>\n
judgment except the judgment of this Court rendered in Executive<\/p>\n
Engineer, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Dharam Singh,<\/a> 2005(2)
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004                                    28<\/span><\/p>\n
RSJ 364. This judgment has been dealt with by a Single Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court in Balwant Singh’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
              In view o f the matter having been settled in various judgments<\/p>\n
of this Court, I do not find to take any contrary view. Hence it is ordered<\/p>\n
that PRTC shall issue a notice to each petitioner calling upon him to refund<\/p>\n
the amount, which was standing as a loan against that employee and entire<\/p>\n
Contributory Provident Fund received at the eve of retirement along with<\/p>\n
interest of 9 percent per annum and such notice shall be served upon the<\/p>\n
petitioners within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this<\/p>\n
order. Thereafter, within two months, as ordered above, each employees<\/p>\n
shall deposit the amount, which was taken by him as non-refundable<\/p>\n
advance with interest @ 9 percent per annum and entire amount of<\/p>\n
Contributory Provident Fund received by him along with interest @ 9<\/p>\n
percent per annum to PRTC. Once the employee, as per directions of this<\/p>\n
Court, deposits the entire amount, he shall be paid pension from the date,<\/p>\n
he became entitled to the same.\n<\/p>\n
              With these observations, aforementioned ten writ petitions are<\/p>\n
disposed off.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
\n                                                   JUDGE
\nDecember 03, 2008
\nrps\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Jagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004 Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008 Jagjit Singh … Petitioner Versus Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-15T16:48:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-15T16:48:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":8678,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Jagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-15T16:48:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-15T16:48:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-15T16:48:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008"},"wordCount":8678,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008","name":"Jagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-15T16:48:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagjit-singh-vs-managing-director-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagjit Singh vs Managing Director on 3 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219985","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219985\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}