IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18804 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 14, 2010. Chander Kumar .....Petitioner versus Punjab State Electricity Board now TRANSCO and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Manish Prabhakar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Kumar, Additional AG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner joined as a Clerk in the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar on 5.12.1969 and was later on appointed as SSA on 24.12.1977 in the same Corporation. On 1.4.1995, the electricity wing of the respondent-Corporation was merged with the Punjab State Electricity Board and the petitioner was also permanently transferred to the respondent-Board. The petitioner has retired from the post of Sub Station Officer (S.S.O.) w.e.f. 30.9.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. C.W.P.No .18804 of 2010 2 The petitioner now seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant him the promotional increments on completion of his 23 years of service, in terms of the Circular No.20/2000 dated 28.7.2000 (Annexure P- 1) by taking into account the entire service rendered by him. The petitioner relies upon a communication dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P-2) in support of the above-stated claim wherein his entitlement for advance promotional increment on completion of 23 years’ of service appears to have been acknowledged. It is averred that notwithstanding the above-stated internal correspondence, the actual benefit has not been released so far. In this regard, the petitioner is said to have served the respondents with a legal notice (Annexure P-9) also but without any response thereto. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought in the writ petition, however, without expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner’s claim, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the afore-mentioned claim of the petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled to the afore-mentioned benefits, the same shall be released to him within the stipulated period. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. October 14, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE