Harinder Singh Bhullar v. Punjab Agricultural University


 
 


 

 !"#$ %!"&''()) $*!*!"$ +%% (",-& !.()*( )"!/$ 0!*12 $03"#$"* $ 4$3( #25(#'!"

 

 



   $0$"*

6 ( .' "002#/.*$2  *'$3$*!*!"$  6 +!0'"/"#'!22(",- 

      '$3$*!*!"$ '0 $*! $#"**!"!"&0(3$ ""(*!"" 

$'0) $#1-$$"& "*$#))*'$-$"$ !*0 0$)$.*!"

& #$-(*"8'$!0.)!9!"&*'*'$0'()#-$& "*$#0$"! 0.)$

0

8$  ;< ".93)$*!" <1$ 00$ /!.$ *$ $&()  33!"*9$"*  !"0*$#    =;<<  "#  0$)$.*!"  & #$  

0

8$ 

;< !"0*$#  =;; 

$>3)"*!"'0-$$"3 /!#$#0*8'1'$800)$$3!"& /$ *'$9**$   )"&3$ !# *$  $*! $9$"*6$ $)1-1&!/!"& )$&)"*!.$"*'$-0!0 09$!"

 9*!" $.$!/$#-109$"$$)0$ ("#$ 2*'$)!9!**!"8()#"*-$$>*$"#$#"" 9).( 0$2*'$ 3$*!*!"0'()#-$ !)$#8!*'!" $0"-)$3$ !#*01*' $$1$ 0 3 /!#$#  - !"&!"&0(!*0"09$.0$02$/$" *$ *'$0!#3$ !#2!*

91-$$"*$ *!"$#-1*'$
( *2-(**'$ $'0*-$09$ $0* !.*!"0!" $"*$ *!"!"&  3$*!*!"  $& #!"&  .)!9!"&  0$ /!.$  -$"$ !*0  8'!.'  *'$ 3$*!*!"$ #!#"*.)!98'!)$'$80!"0$ /!.$  "  

 !

 !"  !"# !$ %&$ "!

 &"

& '"

()!

*

( % $ + 

!$(

,-./ 

,-/8'!)$#$)!"&8!*'

  

 !

 !"  !"# 1  &# "

&$ 

!$(

$3 *$#!"

,-.. ..



2-, *'$3$>
( * '0'$)#0("#$
Since most of the respondents in that case also had retired after serving for several years since the enforcement of Regulations of 1992 and had advanced claim for pension after accepting CPF etc., in para 52 this Court counted the delay of about eight years from the introduction of pension scheme in 1992 and held such delay was unreasonable. On that basis it has been urged on behalf of appellants that through amendment made in 1998 the respondents gave up their claim for pension under the Regulations of 1992 and instead claimed pensionary rights by indirectly mounting a challenge to the decision of the State Government evident from letter dated 16.10.1956, merging PEPSU Roadways with the Corporation. Their claim of being in the employment of State and to have suffered the effect of States Reorganization Act and merger of PEPSU State with the State of Punjab on 01.11.1956 was clearly a claim made after unusual delay of several decades and the High Court should not have condoned such delay." = "3+4 "1(5 

$
##(&( 6 !



)"( )( 1( % $( (+7(

() (! 4 3



% !

#

"

& $ 81%

)# #

"

& %!$ "!4

$3 *$#!",-.9 

 #"

( 

/900 !*'0-$$"'$)# 0("#$  




    

 

 



  

 



 

  

   



        

 

 ! 

      

          

 

  

"



 

 

   



!  

! 

 

#   

  





 



 $
% 

   

   

  

 

 &  !  

     '   

 

 

 



   !    ! 

 

 

 











 (

   )



!

 



  

 *  !   )

+

  (

 
'





 



!

    



'

%%





        

 

 

      

     

,

" "

(

(

$% $ 1

$ !

(!

#(%+
 !"

,--0 .



,02*'$3$>
( *'0'$)#0("#$ -))))  .

  !      "  





   

 

 



.

 ' 

  





     )

(

  

 





 +

   * / 

   

!    0 # 

 

  

+

     

 /

   !

   

 1

    

 

    !

 



   





!

   



 

 

2

 



  

  

 ' 



  (

   '

  %%   

= 



  )

 

 





    ,  





 




 

 

 


 



 !"#

$%%&$'()) 

 



 
 


 






 

  :.-2,-,:

';

99* '$*'$ 03$?!"&@ $0"$#

$0@


    !