IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 11012 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 27.07.2009 Harbans Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner, who retired on 28.2.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation as Assistant Lineman from the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent Board'), has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to grant him the pensionary benefits, after counting the work charge service, which has not been taken care, while passing the impugned order dated 22.1.2009 (Annexure P-2). Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent Board on 1.1.1979 on work charge basis and in the year 1983, his services were terminated. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court, Ludhiana, vide its order dated CWP No. 11012 of 2009 -2- 21.3.1997 (Annexure P-1) set aside his termination and ordered for his reinstatement with continuity of service. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated on 1.8.1997. Thereafter, his services were regularised as Assistant Lineman on 1.3.2000. Now, vide order dated 22.1.2009, the petitioner has been denied the pensionary benefits on the ground that his regular service is less than 10 years. The aspect of counting the ad-hoc service of the petitioner towards qualifying service for pension has not been considered at all. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already served a legal notice dated 27.3.2009 (Annexure P-3) upon the respondents to the effect that his work charge service from 1.1.1979 to 28.2.2000 should have been counted towards qualifying service, while taking decision for the grant of pension. In this regard, the petitioner has cited various judgments in support of his claim. It is the case of the petitioner that the said legal notice has not been considered and decided so far. Counsel further states that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.3 to decide the aforesaid legal notice within a specific period. In view of the above, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the legal notice dated 27.3.2009 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. July 27, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE