Urvesh Goel v. State Of Haryana And Others

LPA-632-2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH LPA-632-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.04.2026 URVESH GOEL ....Appellant

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR *****

Present:

Mr. Neeraj Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) 1.

This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 27.01.2026 primarily on the ground of laches.

2.

It transpires that the appellant was employed with the respondentBoard and he retired on 30.06.2012 from the post of Deputy Superintendent. He was paid gratuity and other benefits admissible to him. 3.

The appellant was not entitled to any pension in terms of the applicable Rules. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that prior to 1989, the employees of the respondent-Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committees were governed by the provisions of the Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules made for them of the year 1965. Thereafter, the Haryana State Marketing Board and Market Committees Employees Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1989 (for short '1989 Rules') got enacted. On commencement of the 1989 Rules, an option was given to the employees to

LPA-632-2026 (O&M) 2 opt for pension. It is admitted that such option was available to the appellant also. Undisputedly, the appellant never exercised such option to claim pension. It transpires that another employee namely Om Parkash filed a suit on his retirement in the year 2012, which ultimately came to be disposed of by this Court in RSA-2454-2013 vide judgment and order dated 07.02.2023, extending the option to the appellant-Om Parkash to opt for pension. It is thereafter that a representation has been made by the appellant and the writ petition came to be filed by him in the year 2026. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by stating that the right to opt for pension was available to the appellant under the applicable statute of 1989, which option he failed to avail. The appellant retired in the year 2012.

It is after 13 years of his retirement that a claim has been set up before this Court for exercising option to opt for pension. Such claim has been rejected relying upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs.

    

           

            

             



    



 



 

           






 
 

 


 
 
  
 

 
 

 






 


 


  

   
  

  


 

  


  

  
!"





   #    

     

     

 $      

  %#  






   

 






 

 
 



 
  
 
 
 

  

&&' &  (  



 
 

 !

  # "



   #  
 

)  * +

 #

  #  #  #        

LPA-632-2026 (O&M) 3 , 

            

      

     

     

       #     -  *
"  
 # 4.

Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 AIR SC 2717, which is referred to in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 5.

Except to state that the appellant intended to opt for the pension scheme, no other plausible explanation has been placed on record for exercising option to opt for the pension scheme. The records otherwise reveal that the appellant could exercise the right of option within 3 months of enforcement of the 1989 Rules. Subsequent attempt made by the appellant was rejected under orders of the authority dated 02.08.2006. This order has attained finality. While filing the writ petition in the year 2026 also, rejection of option was not assailed. 6.

In such circumstances, no exception can be taken to the learned Single Judge in refusing to entertain the writ petition. Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

7.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (ROHIT KAPOOR) APRIL 08, 2026 JUDGE mohit goyal Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No