Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Devinder Kumar Jain and H.L. Dattu

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 3349 of 2008 and SLP (C) 330 of 2008.

2. In Civil Appeal No. 4111 of 2008 - PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Mangal Singh and Ors. ((hereinafter referred to as "Mangal's appeal"), Respondent joined the services of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") as driver on 07.11.1974 and his services were governed by service rules of the Corporation which included the eligibility to receive Contributory Provident Fund (for short, "C.P.F.") and gratuity. Subsequently, on 30.06.1982, the services of the Respondent were terminated for his unauthorized absence from the duty. The Respondent raised an industrial dispute against his termination order, which was dismissed by the Labour Court vide its order dated 11.02.1994. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was allowed vide order dated 10.04.1996, setting aside the order of termination. The High Court further directed the reinstatement of the Respondent with effect from 18.06.1996. In the meantime, on 15.06.1992, the Corporation had introduced the Pension Scheme for its employees and also framed Regulations known as Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations 1992 (`Regulations' for short) in order to regulate the said scheme. The Pension Scheme in terms of Regulation 4 of the Regulations envisages the condition of exercise of the option within a period of six months from the date of issue of the Regulations by an employee in order to avail the pensionary benefits under the scheme. This time was further extended till 15.12.1992. The Regulation 4 of the said Regulations entitles the employee re-joining after leave or suspension to exercise his option for Pension Scheme within the period of 6 months from the date of his re-joining. The Respondent had also submitted nomination form of the C.P.F. scheme. However, the Respondent did not receive any retiral benefits on his retirement after attaining the age of superannuation due to pendency of litigation in the High Court regarding the payment of his back wages for the period of his absence from the service. It is not in dispute that Respondent did not opt for the Pension Scheme till the date of his retirement. On 09.03.2005, the Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court for a direction to the Corporation to sanction pensionary benefits to the Respondent under the pension scheme. The High Court has allowed the writ petition vide its order dated 19.01.2007 on the ground that the provisions of Regulation 4 do not cover the case of the persons reinstated into service pursuant to the orders of the Court. The High Court further directed the Corporation to allow the Respondent to exercise his option for pension scheme within six months from the date of the order and the formalities for payment of pensi........