Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.A. Bobde and Ashok Bhushan

JUDGMENT

Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala against the judgment and order of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 1^st December, 2006 by which judgment the Regular Second Appeal filed by the Appellant has been dismissed affirming the judgments and orders of the Appellate Court and Trial Court. This appeal has arisen out of the original suit filed by the Balwant Singh the predecessor in interest of the Respondents.

2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the appeal are:

Balwant Singh, the Plaintiff had been working as driver with PEPSU Road Transport Corporation. The statutory Regulation has been framed, namely, PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees/Pension Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations 1992"), which came into force w.e.f. 15^th January, 1992. The Regulations were made applicable to the employees of the Corporation who were appointed on or after the date of issue of Regulations on whole-time and regular basis and those who were working immediately before the date of issue of Regulations and opt for these Regulations. The exercise of option for pension scheme was to be made within six months from the date of issue of Regulations. Those employees who opted for Regulations and had obtained advance from the Corporation out of the Contributory Provident Fund were required to refund the same within a period of six months. The Plaintiff did not submit an option under the Regulations 1992 and attained the age of superannuation on 30^th November, 2000. After retirement Plaintiff was released the entire amount of Contributory Provident Fund(CPF) which was received by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 1044 of 2003 for declaration to the effect that Plaintiff is entitled for pension and commuted pensions and other benefits attached with the same alongwith interest @ 18% on the delayed payment. The Plaintiff's case was that after retirement the Defendant only released the contributed fund and has not released the full pension. The Defendants filed written statement stating that Plaintiff had never opted for pension as per Regulations 1992. Plaintiff had received all his dues and no dues against Defendants is pending. Plaintiff had obtained loan of Rs. 12,000/- from CPF out of which Rs. 4999/- is yet to be recovered. The Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 26^th March, 2005 decreed the suit declaring that Plaintiff is entitled to pension, commuted pension and other benefits and Defendants would issue demand notice to the Plaintiff within one month as to how much amount of CPF should be paid by him(plaintiff) so as to avail the benefit of pension scheme. The Trial Court held that although the Plaintiff was to give option as per Regulation 1992 and he had to deposit the amount of CPF but Pension cannot be declined on the technical ground that he had not refunded the loan amount.

3. The Corporation aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court filed an appeal being C.A.D. No. 21 of 2005 which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 29^........