IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 5036 of 2011 Date of Decision : March 21, 2011. Sukhdev Singh .....Petitioner versus The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner held the post of a Pocklain Operator in the office of Senior Superintending Engineer, O&M Circle of the respondent Corporation till he retired w.e.f. 12.1.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner now seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to place him in the revised pay scale of Rs.5300-8275 which, according to him, is corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.1500- 2640 drawn by him as per various finance circulars issued by the Board. The petitioner also seeks consequential re-fixation of his pay. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the recovery of Rs.7037/- made from his gratuity vide the impugned order dated 25.2.2011 (Annexure P8). C.W.P.No . 5036 of 2011 2 The claim for the grant of corresponding revised pay scale and the consequential revision of the pay has been raised by the petitioner vide legal notice dated 23.08.2010 (Annexure P-7) to which he is still awaiting the response. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with a direction to respondent No.1- Corporation to consider the above mentioned claims of the petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The fate of recovery order dated 25.2.2011 will also depend upon the decision to be taken by the respondents in terms of the directions given herein above. Suffice it to say that if the petitioner's claim is accepted, it appears that no recovery can be effected from him and in that event, the competent authority shall examine the desirability of withdrawal of the impugned recovery order also. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to re-agitate the issues including challenge to the recovery order dated 25.2.2011 at an appropriate stage, if so advised. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. March 21, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE