CWP No. 13217 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13217 of 2006 Date of Decision: 16.5.2008 M.K. Jain ....Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. This order shall also dispose of CWP No. 17991 of 2006 filed by the petitioner to seek quashing of the charge sheet and to take action against respondent No. 7 Shri Balraj Singh Dahiya for his criminal conduct. On 22.2.2008, the parties to the writ petitions arrived at a consensus. As per the consensus, the petitioner was to submit a representation, which was to be considered by the Managing Director of respondent No.1. In terms of such consent, the petitioner submitted his representation, which has since been decided by the Managing Director of respondent No.1 on 16.4.2008. Final decision has been taken in respect of certain charge-sheets, but the charge-sheets at serial Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the orders passed by the Managing Director are still pending. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and the charge-sheets are pending for a long time, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to take a final decision on the charge sheets issued and also take action against respondent No.7. CWP No. 13217 of 2006 (2) Since a final decision has been taken on number of grievances and the retrial benefits paid to large extent, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions with the directions to the respondents to take a final decision on the pending charge-sheets as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date the certified copy of the order is received by the respondents. On final decision being taken, the consequential action as may be required under law including the payment of retrial benefits to the petitioner, shall be taken within a period of two months thereafter. However, we do not find any ground to issue any direction in respect of taking any action against respondent No. 7 as it is for the employer to take a suitable action against its employees and the petitioner cannot claim a writ of Mandamus for initiating any action against respondent No.7. Both the writ petitions are disposed of with the directions indicated above. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 16-05-2008 jt/ds