HARDARSHAN SINGH Vs. PUNJAB MANDI BOARD CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the appeal.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that as per the Notification dated 10.09.2012 Exhibit P-8, appellant could have opted for the grant of the benefit under the General Provident Fund scheme of the department. His contention is that the said benefit has not been given to the appellant. Assertion has also been made that as per the Notification dated 30.11.1987, although the appellant had not initially opted for the benefit under the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committee Employees Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1965, but could have so opted under the 1987 Rules. He contends that because of the time schedule of three months, the appellant could not apply for the same as he was in the field and came to know of it very late. He asserts that the appellant had filed two applications, one dated 26.09.2011 (Exhibit P-4) and another dated 31.10.2011 (Exhibit P-6) opting for pension which was prior to the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.10.2011 but the said applications have not been taken into consideration. He contends that the Courts below have wrongly proceeded on the assumption that merely because the earlier two applications dated 26.09.2011 and 31.10.2011 (Exhibits P-4 and P-6) have not been mentioned in the subsequent applications dated 10.01.2013 and 20.12.2012 (Exhibits P-9 and P-10 respectively), which the appellant-plaintiff had submitted, the same could not have been made the basis for rejection of the claim. Because of the fault of the respondents, appellant-plaintiff cannot be made to suffer. He, thus, contends that the orders as passed by the Courts below cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance, have gone through the records of the case as well as the Notification.