CWP 588 of 2002. 17.12.2008 Present: Mr. Adarsh Vashista, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the respondents. When this writ petition was taken for hearing today, we made efforts to see as to whether some pensionary benefits could be given to the petitioner. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the case of the petitioner has been rejected as he had not put in 20 years of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner had satisfied the conditions for award of pensionary benefits and that his case may be reconsidered by the respondents. Without entering into the merits of the respective contentions urged by learned counsel appearing for the parties, we direct that this writ petition be treated as representation by the respondents. Needless to add, that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard and presenting his case. Let the decision on the representation be taken by the respondents within a period of six months from today. While disposing of the representation, the respondents shall, of course, keep in mind -2- Annexure A-2, Memorandum dated 7.4.1986, recommending the case of the petitioner for Terminal Gratuity. We feel that any forfeiture of this Terminal Gratuity would be harsh and inequitable. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), J. December 17, 2008 (PC). ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.