IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4147 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 18.03.2009 Harish Chander .... PETITIONER Versus Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The prayer made by the petitioner, who is working as Section Officer in the Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, Chandigarh, is for fixation of his pay in the revised Assured Career Progression-ACP Pay-scale by granting him the benefit of increment of his promotion with effect from the due date with all consequential benefits arising therefrom. It is the case of the petitioner that regarding the aforesaid prayer, he has made a detailed representation dated 10.2.2006, but the respondent, after considering his representation, has refused to review its decision on fixation of his basic pay, by passing the following order : CWP No. 4147 of 2009 -2- “This has reference your representation dated 10.02.2006 on the subject cited above. In this connection, it is intimated that your representation was considered and it has been found that your basic pay has been correctly calculated and thus, the representation dated 10.02.2006 is filed.” Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which has been dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P-8) on the ground that the same is not maintainable. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the contents of the petition, I am of the opinion that the above said order is totally non-speaking. It has not been disclosed that on what ground the representation of the petitioner has been filed. In view of these facts, without issuing notice of motion to the respondents, as it will un-necessary delay the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authority to pass a speaking order on the representation filed by the petitioner, after providing him an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law. March 18, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE