CWP No.3985 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 8.3.2010 Daya Chand ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Ms.Sunita Nandal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of the respondents. Keeping in view the prayer made and with the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in Health Department on 9.11.1981. He was promoted to the post of Assistant vide order dated 8.11.2006 passed by the Director General Health Service, Haryana and he joined as such on 18.12.2006 in ESI Hospital, NH 3 Faridabad. One Manoj Kumar who was also appointed as Clerk under Schedule Caste Reserve CWP No.3985 of 2010 2 Category on 20.12.1982 was promoted to the post of Assistant on 16.10.1990 on account of accelerated promotion on roster point. The petitioner was promoted later than the said Manoj Kumar. The petitioner relies upon Government instructions dated 27.11.2006 which, inter-alia, allows the benefit of the pay fixation to a General Category Candidate on promotion at par with the Schedule Caste Category who was promoted earlier in time. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of the pay fixation at par with Manoj Kumar who was promoted earlier than him being a reserved category candidate on roster point. The petitioner has made a representation (Annexure P-6) in this regard, but the same has not been decided till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if respondents are directed to decide the representation served by the petitioner. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to take a decision on the representation (Annexure P-6) within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is furnished to 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 08.3.2010 MFK