IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 15843 of 2010 Date of Decision: 7.9.2010. Dharam Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. K.L. Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate present in the Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondents. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner was initially appointed as work charge A.L.M in the erstwhile State of Punjab in the P.W.D. Electricity Branch. In the year 1957 he was adjusted as A.L.M on regular basis and posted in Kalanaur Subordinate Office, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. Later w.e.f. 1.4.1959 Punjab State Electricity Board was constituted and the services of the petitioner were transferred to the Board. On re-organization of the State of Punjab, services of petitioner were further transferred to the State of Haryana in Haryana State Electricity Board. Vide circular dated 6.8.1993 options were asked from the employees of the H.S.E.B with regard to the pensionary benefits etc. It is stated that the aforesaid circular was not circulated, CWP. No. 15843 of 2010 -2- however, when the petitioner came to know about the circular, he made a representation vide representation (Annexure P-3) dated 18.6.1997. The claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits has not been decided. The petitioner made a number of representations (Annexures P-3, P-5 & P-7). The Executive Engineer, Urban Division, U.H.B.V.N vide letter dated 19.3.2009 recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits subject to refund of the E.P.F with interest. Similar recommendation was made on the same day by the Superintending Engineer (O.P.) Circle, U.H.B.V.N., Sonepat vide Annexure P-9. The grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid recommendations have not been considered nor the pensionary benefits have been released. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the representation served by the petitioner, referred to above in the light of recommendations (Annexures P-8 & P-9) and judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Annexure P-4). In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to take decision on the representation served by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 7.9.2010. lucky