CWP No. 19465 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CWP No. 19465 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.10.2011 Nirmal Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Ms Divya Godara, Advocate for the petitioners -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Petitioners herein are seeking direction to the respondents to allow them to opt for pension and grant the pension and to count the work charge service for determination of the pension. It is contended that petitioners No. 1 to 3 have since retired, whereas, petitioner No. 4 is due to retire on 31.12.2011. It is further contended that the respondents called upon vide circular dated 06.08.1993 to exercise option for the grant of pension. However, the said circular dated 06.08.1993 was never brought to the notice of the petitioners nor any information was given in that regard. Accordingly, the petitioners served a legal notice dated 15.03.2011 to the respondents. The said legal notice is still pending. CWP No. 19465 of 2011 2 It is also contended that the matter in hand is squarely covered by the ratio of judgement rendered by the Court in the case of Ram Raj Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 2402 of 1997, decided on 12.12.2005) as well as by the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others v. Bachan Singh (Civil Appeal No. 4903 of 2009, decided on 30.07.2009). In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of at with direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 15.03.2011 (P2) served by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioners are found to be entitled for the said relief, the same shall be granted to them within two months thereafter. However, it goes without saying that if the claim of the petitioners is to be rejected, the respondents shall pass a speaking order. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 18.10.2011 mohan