Hardev Singh And Others vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation And Another

Harpreet Singh Brar, J

The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to fix the commutation of pension properly without deducting installments from the date of retirement till he date of actual payment and refund the amount deducted along with interest. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the order dated 20.11.2020 (Annexure P-7), whereby, the representation of the petitioners has been declined.

Learned counsel for the petitioners INTER ALIA contends that the petitioners joined in the respondent-Corporation and retired in the year 2007 to 2010. He further submits that the identically circumstanced employees have approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.19084 of 2009 titled as ‘Malkit Singh and another Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another’ decided on 03.03.2011 (Annexure P-2) which was allowed by this Court to the extent of granting the retiral benefits to the petitioner(s) therein. However, in view of the financial constraints of the respondents-Corporation, the interest payable to the petitioner(s) therein was kept in abeyance. He further relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.7386 of 2016 titled as ‘Harmeet Kaur Vs. PRTC and others’ and submits that this Court vide order dated 23.04.2018 was granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the commuted pension. Even the civil suit filed by some of the similarly situated employees bearing No.647 of 03.12.2011 was decreed on 28.02.2014. As such, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Harmeet Kaur’s case (supra) and petitioners are entitled to the interest in the same terms.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation submits that the claim of the petitioners is hopelessly barred by the principle of delay and laches. The petitioners are a fence sitter and remained indolent for several years and the identical issue challenging the same impugned order was considered by this Court in CWP No.26483 of 2021 titled as ‘Jarnail Singh and others Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation’ decided on 23.09.2025 and the claim of the petitioners therein was rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to controvert the fact that the impugned order has been challenged by similarly situated co-retirees in Jarnail Singh’s case (surpa) and this Court has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition.

In view of the discussion above, the present writ petition is dismissed in terms of the law laid down in Jarnail Singh’s case (surpa).