In case an employee sought an option to have a pension, he was required to refund the companytribution made by the Appellant along with the interest.
In the present case, it appears that the Respondent opted for pension.
The Respondent retired on 30th June, 1994.
It is alleged that an option was given under the Rules to the employees who were in the service of the Appellant Board between 1st April, 1990 and the date of enforcement, to opt either for Provident Fund or for pension.
On 28th July, 1994 the State Government published rule known as Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and Generic Provident Fund Rules, which was enforced with effect from 1st April, 1990.
The Appellant Municipal Committee approved the said appointment on 16th September, 1954.
Under these circumstances, the Respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, this pension was given with effect from 1st February, 1968.
It is also alleged that the Respondent also started companytributing towards Provident Fund with effect from 1st February, 1968.
The Appellant filed a written statement wherein the stand taken was that since the Respondent started his companytribution towards Provident Fund with effect from 1st February, 1968, as such he would be entitled to pension with effect from the said date and number with effect from 17th July, 1954 under the Rules.
The Respondents case was that he was in service with effect from 17th July, 1954 and as such the pension ought to have been given with effect from the said date.
N. Khare, J. Heard Counsel for the parties.
The Respondent herein was appointed as a Driver on a fixed salary of Rs.
80/per month on 17th July, 1954.
