Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONER -Balbir Kaur was taken in service as a daily wage Clerk by the respondent -University on 5.5.1993. Thereafter she was made ad hoc employee on fixed pay of Rs. 2000/ - per month on 10.1.1994. She was appointed as regular Library Restorer on 28.7.2001. She retired on superannuation on 30.11.2006. She was re -appointed for 2 years in the fixed pay of Rs. 8755/ - per month on 1.12.2006. By calculating her entire service, she filed an application for grant of pension, which was rejected on 5.2.2009 (P -4), stating that period rendered by her on daily wage basis and contract/ad hoc basis, cannot be counted towards qualifying period to get pension. Her legal notice was also rejected on the above mentioned ground vide order dated 9.6.2010. Hence, this writ petition.
(2.) HEARD counsel for the parties. As per the provisions of Punjabi University Calendar, Vol. I, Chapter IV, Paras No. 2 and 3, there exists a Scheme to provide pension to regular employees of the respondent -University. Paras No. 2 and 3 reads thus: - - "2. All whole time paid employee who were beneficiaries under the existing scheme of CPF (Contributory Provident Fund) except those appointed on contract basis, who on attaining the age of retirement indicated in statute 38, retire on or after 1.4.1990, shall be entitled to the benefit of Pension Scheme including Pre mature Retirement Pension, Commuted Pension etc. and Family Pension to eligible persons in case of death of employee on or after 1.4.1990, unless they specifically opt out in writing to continue under me CPF Scheme. 3. The employees of the categories mentioned at 2 above, who jointed the University on or after the date of issue of the Notification of the Statutes, will be governed by the Pension Scheme only. Provided that such University employee who shall not be completing 10 years service (5 years in the case of University teachers) including permissible previous service, if any, at the time of superannuation shall be allowed to opt for CPF."
(3.) IT is petitioner's case that she never opted out to continue with the Contributory Pension Scheme. It is an admitted fact that at the time of her superannuation, she was given the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund.;