Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjogita Devi And Anr vs Bhakhra Beas Management Board And Anr on 2 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060548
CWP-25798-2019 1 2024:PHHC:060548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
117 CWP-25798-2019
Date of Decision : 02.05.2024
SANJOGITA DEVI AND ANR ...PETITIONERS
Versus
BHAKHRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr.Naveen Daryal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate and
Mr. Ram Pal Kohli, Advocate
for the respondent-BBMB.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India are seeking directions to respondents to convert their
status from Contributory Provident Fund (for short 'CPF') to Gross Provident
Fund (for short 'GPF') Scheme.
2. The respondent by notification dated 14.01.2008 (Annexure P-6)
introduced GPF Scheme. The respondent invited options from all the
employees. It is apt to mention here that on a piece of paper, where many others
had put their signatures, petitioner No.1 did not sign but petitioner No.2 signed
against impression 'No'. They claim that they are illiterate women, thus, as
asked by respondent, they signed. They could not understand the consequences.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060548
CWP-25798-2019 2 2024:PHHC:060548
The petitioners filed representation dated 11.08.2015 (Annexure P-1) requesting
the respondents to permit them to change their option from CPF to GPF. The
Executive Engineer, BBMB, Panipat, recommended their case and asked the
higher authorities to change their option from CPF to GPF. The office of
Superintending Engineer vide communication dated 01.10.2015 again requested
head office to change option of petitioners from CPF to GPF. They retired from
service as Peon w.e.f. 31.03.2016.
3. Mr.Naveen Daryal, Advocate submits that case of the petitioners is
squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in LPA No.1449
of 2013, decided on 14.05.2015 titled as "N.P.Sharma vs. Haryana Power
Generation Corporation Ltd. and others". In the said case, the Division Bench
has set aside judgment of Single Judge and directed the respondents to allow the
petitioners therein to switch over from CPF to GPF Scheme. The case of the
present petitioners is on better footing. They requested the respondents to allow
them to opt for GPF instead of CPF and jurisdictional authorities recommended
their case to the head office.
4. Per contra, Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate submits that the
petitioners were given option in 2008 and they did not avail benefit at that point
of time. They could not be permitted to change option at this belated stage.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Concededly, the petitioners did not opt GPF Scheme in 2008,
however, in 2015, while they were in service, requested the respondents to allow
them to switch over from CPF to GPF. The jurisdictional authorities twice
recommended their case to head office. The respondent has rejected their claim
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060548
CWP-25798-2019 3 2024:PHHC:060548
on the sole ground that they did not opt for GPF in 2008. As pointed out by the
counsel for petitioners, a Division Bench of this Court in N. P. Sharma's case
(supra) has held that benefit of beneficial scheme should be extended to an
employee. The said benefit cannot be denied on technical ground.
7. A Division Bench of this Court has set aside judgment of Single
Judge who had dismissed writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The
relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below :
5) There is no gain saying that claim for grant of pension
is a continuous cause of action and it cannot be turned down
being barred by delay or laches though equities can always
be balanced between the parties.
6) Adverting to the merits of the case, it is not in dispute
that in the year 1986, the respondent-Corporation itself
introduced a scheme whereunder the employees were
permitted to switch over from CPF to Pension Scheme. This
Court has also in a catena of decisions held that if a more
beneficial scheme was introduced subsequently, the
employees are entitled to avail the benefit of such Scheme
though ensuring that whatever benefits have been drawn by
them under the old scheme must be refunded with interest.
One of such order dated 13.02.2012 passed by a learned
Single Judge in the case of similarly placed employees of the
respondent-Corporation has been relied upon by the
appellant also (Karta Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others)
CWP No.11430 of 1999 (Annexure P-3).
7) We are informed that the order Annexure P-3 has since
been implemented and those employees have been allowed to
switch over from CPF to pension scheme.
8) CWP No.15434 of 1997 decided on 18.08.2004 (Ravi
Dutt Mehta Vs. State of Haryana and others) is also a
similar instance where the employee was permitted to switch
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060548
CWP-25798-2019 4 2024:PHHC:060548
over from CPF Scheme to Pension Scheme. A similar
direction was issued in Randhir Singh Vs. State of Haryana
and others by one of us (Surya Kant, J.) (CWP No.225 of
2009 decided on 07.07.2010) subject to the writ petitioner
depositing the entire amount of CPF along with interest at
the rate prescribed by the authorities.
9) This very aspect was deliberated in Jaswant Singh
Chaudhary Vs. H.V.P.N.L. and others (CWP No.11209 of
2009) decided on 15.12.2011 against which Letters Patent
appeal as well as SLP have also been dismissed.
10) In the light of the above referred decisions, coupled
with the Corporation's own policy, we see no reason to single
out the appellant from the benefit of Pension Scheme merely
because there has been delay on his part in approaching the
Court, moreso when no prejudice would be caused to the
respondents on account of such delay. Consequently, the
Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the
learned Single Judge is set aside and as a result the order
dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Corporation is quashed with
a direction that if the appellant deposits the entire amount of
CPF received by him along with interest as per the
rules/instructions applicable in the respondent-Corporation
from time to time, the respondent-Corporation shall permit
the appellant to switch over to the pension scheme. The
arrears of pension shall be paid to the appellant within a
period of three months from the date of deposit of the amount
of the CPF of the appellant.
11) The respondent Corporation shall inform the appellant
within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order, the amount of CPF along with interest which is
required to be deposited by the appellant.
8. Respectfully following the above-cited judgment, the respondents
are hereby directed to permit the petitioners to switch over from CPF to GPF
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060548
CWP-25798-2019 5 2024:PHHC:060548
Scheme. It is made clear that the petitioners would deposit benefits availed
under CPF within 02 months from today along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
9. The petition stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
02.05.2024
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes
5 of 5
