Civil Writ Petition No.18286 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18286 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 12th September,2011. Rajender Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus The Chief Engineer (Admn.) Haryana and Others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present:Mr.Ravinder Hooda Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Mohnish Sharma Advocate for Mr.Narender Hooda Advocate for the respondents. * * * Nirmaljit Kaur, J.(Oral) Civil Misc. No.6292 of 2011 Annexures P-8 and P-9 are taken on record. Civil Misc. is disposed of. Civil Misc. No.8556 of 2011 Written statement along with Annexures R-2/1 and R-2/9 are taken on record. Civil Misc. is disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No.18286 of 2010 Through the present petition, mandamus is sought directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Meter Readers on the basis of their qualifications being at par with similarly situated persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that respondent No.1 formulated policy that at least one member of the Civil Writ Petition No.18286 of 2010(O&M) 2 affected family, whose land had been acquired by the Board for construction of the Thermal Plant at Panipat, should be given employment in the service of respondent-Nigam according to the qualifications. The matriculate and above were to be provided jobs of Meter Readers whereas, those who were under matriculate were to be appointed on daily wages basis. In subsequent to the directions issued by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.338 of 1999 as well as LPA No.79 of 2007, the affected persons were given jobs as per their eligibility. However, the respondents offered the appointment of Peon to the petitioners even though, they were eligible to be appointed as Meter Readers in accordance with the proposed policy. They accepted the post of Peon on account of their financial constraint. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No.7158 of 2010. However the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Appropriate Authority but the respondents did not taken any step regarding the demand notice sent by the petitioners. Written statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed stating therein that petitioner No.1 was given offer of appointment in place of his brother-Hakam Singh. As far as, petitioner No.2 is concerned, he has completed matriculation in the year 1998. The offer of appointment to the post of Peon was issued to both the petitioners i.e. Hakam Singh and Ram Roop in CWP No.338 of 1999. It is further submitted that they rightly given appointments as Peon. Heard. It is an admitted fact that Rajinder Singh has passed matriculation in April, 1991 and Ram Roop has passed matriculation Civil Writ Petition No.18286 of 2010(O&M) 3 in April 1998. Thus, on the date of their appointments, they were matriculate. It is further admitted that one member of the affected family, whose land had been acquired by the Board as per policy, is entitled for appointment to the post of LDC/Meter Reader if matriculate and above. Thus, there is no reason to deny the petitioners appointment to the post of Meter Readers. They are both qualified and eligible under the policy. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are accordingly directed to consider the appointment of the petitioners as Meter Readers from the date of their initial appointments as Peon on the basis of their qualifications at par with other similarly situated persons. (Nirmaljit Kaur) 12.09.2011. Judge Seema-II