CWP No.8062 of 2009 : 1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 26.05.2009 Rajwinder Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.AK Khunger, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Notice of motion. At this stage, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage. The petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul. However, in appeal, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 406 of the IPC, though his conviction was up held under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. A Criminal Revision No.1732 of 2006 is pending before this Court. In the aforesaid revision, vide order dated 26.09.2008, conviction of the petitioner has been stayed. After conviction, CWP No.8062 of 2009 : 2: the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 26.09.2006, Annexure P-2. The petitioner has prayed the respondents seeking reinstatement in view of the stay of his conviction. The petitioner has also served a legal notice, dated 22.04.2009, Annexure P-6, seeking reinstatement, but no decision has been taken thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if the respondents are directed to take a decision on the legal notice Annexure P-6 served by the petitioner keeping in view the order dated 26.09.2008 staying conviction. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to take a decision on the legal notice of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. If the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine and valid, appropriate consequential order be passed. In the event, the claim is to be rejected, the same shall by passing a speaking order. 26.05.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE