CWP No.22804 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 21.12.2010 Sh.Ishkumar Sehgal ...Petitioner VERSUS UHBVNL and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondents no.1 to 3. 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 initially joined as an Adhoc S.A. At Karnal on 9.4.1973 and thereafter he seems to have been regularized on 25.6.1973. He was thereafter promoted as ASSA, SSA and J.E. It is alleged that Om Parkash, JE-respondent no.4 who is junior to the petitioner and belongs to the reserved category got accelerated promotion from time to time and the petitioner belonging to General Category was promoted later than the said CWP No.22804 OF 2010 2 respondent. The petitioner has given the details of joining of said employee. The short grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.4 is getting higher salary than the petitioner. The petitioner has been granted seniority on his promotion over and above respondent no.4, but his salary has not been brought at par with respondent no.4. The petitioner served legal notice (Annexure P-6). The petitioner also relies upon government instructions dated 14.10.1999 and the order passed by this Court in CWP No.10068 of 2009 on 5.8.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 legal notice of the petitioner taking into consideration government instructions and judgment referred to above 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 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