CWP No.22376 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 15.12.2010 Ratti Ram ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.K.L.Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana 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 and 3. 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 joined the department of the respondents on 7.1.1966 as Assistant Lineman and was promoted as Assistant Foreman on 10.3.1988. He retired on 29.4.2004. According to the averments made in this petition, employees of the respondents-Nigam are also entitled to the CWP No.22376 of 2010 2 benefits of Standard Grade and ACP at par with the government employees. Though the petitioner has been paid pension vide PPO No.2501 dated 23.6.2004, however, the petitioner has not been granted the benefit of either Standard Grade or the ACP. It is stated that the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of regular service as on 10.3.1998 when the ACP rule was notified and as such the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of ACP. The petitioner made representations (Annexures P-5 and P-6) in this regard. The petitioner has further placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Dahiya vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, 2008(3) RSJ 186. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if respondents are directed to decide the representations. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner in the light of the judgments (Annexure P-I) 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 15.12. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 3