HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.20316 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.08.2011 **** Pawan Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. RS Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. BS Chahal, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 29.03.2010 (Annexure P13) whereby his claim for regularization of the period from 18.10.2000 to 18.07.2004 has been declined. (2). Respondents No.1to3 have taken the following preliminary objection in their reply/affidavit dated 23.04.2011:- “That the petitioner Sh. Pawan Kumar joined on the Ranjit Sagar Dam project on 27.8.1996. He was transferred to the BBMB Talwara in the month of July, 2000 and remained there from 17.7.2000 to 21.6.2007. The petitioner was transferred to the Ranjit Sagar Dam project on 15.05.2007. As regards the disputed period of the CWP No.20316 of 2010.doc - 2 - petitioner from 18.10.2000 to 18.07.2004, the same relates to respondent No.4&5. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for the absentee period by the respondents No.4&5. He has submitted the reply of the charge-sheet. The annual increment and revised pay scale for the period relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam Project shall be granted to the petitioner as and when service record for the period 18.10.2000 to 18.07.2004 is completed by the BBMB authorities Talwara.” (3). It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet referred to in the preliminary objection has been served upon the petitioner only during the pendency of this petition. The said enquiry proceedings are to be conducted by the parent department, namely, respondents No.1 to 3. (4). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, at this stage, with a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to take appropriate decision in respect of the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months. Respondents No.4&5 are also directed to take a decision at their end regarding regularization of the above-mentioned service period of the petitioner within two months thereafter and keeping in view the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. (5). In the event of the petitioner’s exoneration and the resultant regularization of the above-mentioned period, 2 CWP No.20316 of 2010.doc - 3 - the consequential service benefit shall also be released to him within two months. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 16.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 3