Civil Writ Petition No. 19045 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19045 of 2011 Date of Decision : 12.10.2011 Sant Ram .......... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 18754 of 1991 titled 'Gurdev Singh & others vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on 18.1.2010 (Annexure P-3) to contend that the petitioner is similarly placed and entitled to the same benefit. He further contends that the said judgment has been accepted by the Haryana Government and in compliance thereto instructions dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P-4) has been issued wherein it has been held that this letter would be applicable to the employees whose qualification was not matric with ITI and they were appointed prior to 1.5.1990 on technical posts, whose qualification was matric with ITI under the provisions of service rule / draft service rules/ qualification prescribed otherwise. He contends that the petitioner had already served a legal notice dated 26.3.2010 (Annexure P-2) upon the respondents but till date no decision thereon has been taken. Counsel for the petitioner contends that at this stage the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to Civil Writ Petition No. 19045 of 2011 -2- the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner, which has been projected by him through his legal notice (Annexure P-2) within some specified time. Without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereon the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent Engineer, Mechanical Division, PWD (B&R), Karnal- respondent No.3 to consider the legal notice (Annexure P-2) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and pass a speaking order. In case, the petitioner is held entitled to the same benefit as has been granted to the others and his claim is covered by the letter dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P-4), the consequential benefits be released to him within a further period of one month. 12.10.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE