IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13282 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 28.08.2009 Bal Krishan .... PETITIONER Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner has filed this petition for issuing direction to the respondents to convert him as work charge with effect from the date, he is entitled for the same, in view of the circulars dated 19.9.1991 (Annexure P- 2) and 30.12.1994 (Annexure P-3). It is the case of the petitioner that on 12.7.1999, he was converted to work charge from daily wages by taking his service from April, 1997, whereas the petitioner was working on daily wages since June, 1987. According to the petitioner, on 10.5.1990, his services were terminated. He challenged his termination before the Labour Court. His termination was set aside by the Labour Court vide Award dated 12.5.1998 and he was ordered to be re-instated in service with continuity of service, but without back CWP No. 13282 of 2009 -2- wages. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 27.2.2009, the respondent Board has implemented the Award of the Labour Court and he has been given continuity of service. It is the further case of the petitioner that in view of the said order, if his service is taken from June, 1987, then he was to be converted to the work charge in the year 1994, in view of the circular dated 30.12.1994 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in this regard, the petitioner has submitted a written representation dated 2.4.2009 (Annexure P-7) to respondent No.2 and the same has not been considered so far. Counsel further states at this stage, the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the said representation in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. 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.2 to consider and decide the representation dated 2.4.2009 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. August 28, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE