CWP No.21629 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 6.12.2010 Narender Kumar ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate appearing for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents no.2 to 4. 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 was appointed as Junior Engineer (F) on 20.9.1989. He was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer-I on 19.5.1993. The grievance of the petitioner is that his name was not properly reflected in the tentative CWP No.21629 of 2010 2 seniority list of JE/JE-I issued by the respondents. The petitioner made various representations collectively, the last being dated 21.6.2010, seeking rectification of the seniority. On such representation, a fresh seniority list dated 24.6.2010 (Annexure P-2) was issued. The petitioner's name has been correctly reflected. One Dilbagh who was junior to the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner is also seeking promotion from the date his junior was promoted. The petitioner has made a representation (Annexure P-4) and legal notice (Annexure P-5), but no decision has been taken thereon till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if respondents are directed to decide the representation/legal notice. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.3 to decide the representation/legal notice of the petitioner 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 petitioner is rejected, it shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 6.12. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 3