CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO.18425 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 03, 2011 Hans Raj Singh Bark .....Petitioner VERSUS The Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to act upon letter, Annexure P-5, whereby his request for voluntary retirement from service of the Company was accepted by the competent authority and communicated to him. He would also pray that the office order dated 21.4.2008 (Annexure P-6) issued thereafter be also not acted upon. The petitioner, who was employed as Development Officer, would make reference to the notification vide which policy CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO.18425 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: called General Insurance of Rationalization of Pay Scale and other conditions of service was framed giving option of voluntary retirement within 60 days. This package was introduced in the year 2002 and the officer could opt for payment of one time benefit. The petitioner exercised this option on 3.3.2003 but soon thereafter made a request for withdrawing the same on 24.3.2003. The respondents thereafter did not act upon this option and the request for withdrawal also remained pending. The petitioner had also served a legal notice on 3.5.2003. Still the said request of the petitioner was accepted on 21.4.2008 nearly after a gap of five years. The petitioner accordingly has filed the present writ petition. This writ petition was filed through Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate of this Court. At the time of arguments, Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, appeared to represent the petitioner and prayed for time to prepare the case as he was engaged in the morning only. His attention was drawn to the reply filed in this case where by way of preliminary objection, the Bank has stated that the competent authority had passed the order on 11.4.2008 and 21.4.2008, whereas the petitioner had filed the writ petition on 22.9.2008 i.e. after five months. It is stated that the petitioner had never represented against the impugned order, meaning thereby the Bank itself is not averse to consider the prayer of the petitioner. As per the reply, there is no cause of action with the petitioner to challenge the same without first approaching the competent authority. Let the petitioner, at the first instance, file a representation before the competent authority, disclosing his CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO.18425 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: grievances. If he does so, the same shall be considered and an appropriate order passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. The petitioner would be at liberty to take any action in accordance with law, if he feels aggrieved against any order passed by the competent authority. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. February 03, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE