IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 693 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.1.2010. Ashok Kumar --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. P.K. Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. The petitioner was engaged as a Driver on contractual basis by the respondent no.3 on 25.1.1994 on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 8.5.1998 w.e.f. 1.5.1998. Some of the drivers, who are appointed on contract basis, their services were regularized after completion of 2 years service whereas in case of the petitioner, his services have been regularized after about 4 years. The petitioner filed CWP No. 3458 of 2008 seeking direction for retrospective regularization. This petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.3.2008 asking the respondents to decide the legal notice served by the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court the date of regularization of petitioner's service has been shifted from 1.5.1998 to 25.1.1996. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming T.A. D.A and over time etc. for the period i.e. 25.1.1996 to 1.5.1998. The petitioner has also served a legal notice (Annexure P-3) claiming the CWP. No. 693 of 2010 -2- aforesaid benefit. The grievance of the petitioner is that even the legal notice has not been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the legal notice served by the petitioner. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.3 to consider and decide the legal notice served by the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 18.1.2010. lucky