CWP No. 17134 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CWP No. 17134 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.09.2011 Raj Singh ...... Petitioner Versus UHBVN Limited and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 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) Prays for issuance of direction to the respondents for treating the suspension period of the petitioner i.e 26.07.2000 to 07.01.2010 as a duty period and also for granting the service benefits including monetary benefits. FIR No. 289 dated 27.07.2000 under Sections 411, 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P S Jhajjar was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide office order No. 266 dated 13.09.2000 on the ground that the aforesaid FIR was registered against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge by the trial Court vide judgement dated 07.11.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 07.01.2010 (P2). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation CWP No. 17134 of 2011 2 before the respondent on 31.05.2010 (P3) praying therein that his suspension period be treated as a duty period. However, when no action was taken, a legal notice dated 16.02.2011(P4) was served upon the respondents. In response to the said legal notice, respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 28.07.2011 (P6) to respondent No. 5 asking respondent No. 5 to pass appropriate order qua the suspension period. Instead of passing the required order, respondent No. 5 wrote back to respondent No. 4 asking respondent No. 4 to take appropriate action in the matter. Respondents No. 4 and 5 are shifting the responsibility on each other. In view of the above, respondent No. 3 - Superintending Engineer, is directed to take a final decision on the said representation as well as legal notice (P3 and P4) respectively as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. In case, the claim of the petitioner is accepted, necessary relief shall be granted to him within one month thereafter. However, it goes without saying that, in case, the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the respondent-department shall pass a speaking order. Disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 13.09.2011 mohan