CWP No.22839 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 21.12.2010 Chand Kumar Sangwan & Ors. ...Petitioners VERSUS Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate appearing for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in response to advertisement dated 16.1.2004 issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission inviting applications for 314 posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical). The result of the selection was declared on 25.7.2004. The Commission sent recommendation for appointment of the selected candidates to respective Nigam as it was a common advertisement. Some of the selected candidates were not allowed to join due to imposition of Model Code of Conduct on account of election. The selection came to be CWP No.22839 of 2010 2 challenged in various writ petitions before this Court. This Court disposed of the writ petitions and writ petitioners therein were permitted to join w.e.f. 2004 as they were not permitted to join on account of imposition of Model Code of Conduct. The petitioners, however, joined their services in the year 2006. The petitioners claim seniority on the basis of their merit in the selection. The claim of the petitioners for appointment was considered and they were granted seniority w.e.f. 2004 when persons junior to them were appointed as is evident from Annexures P-9, P-11 and P-12. This benefit is for all intents and purposes, except the arrears of salary. The grievance of the petitioners is that on account of their joining in the year 2006, their right of pension under the rules existing at the time of their selection/appointment in the year 2004 is being denied to them. The petitioner served a legal notice dated 25.12.2009 (Annexure P-8) claiming pension. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if respondents are directed to decide the representation. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner by taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was granted appointment w.e.f. 2004 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by the competent authority. Needless to say in the event the claim of the petitioners is to be rejected, it shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 21.12. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 3