Kedar Nath v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd And ORS.

CWP No.2565 OF 2018 --1--

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2565 OF 2018 DECIDED ON: FEBRUARY 05, 2018 KEDAR NATH .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

UHBVNL AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

Present:

Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** JASPAL SINGH, J Instant petition has been preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to count his daily wages services w.e.f. 1987 to 26.07.1990 as "qualifying service" towards pensionary benefits.

2.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was employed as Assistant Lineman by the respondents on daily wages for line work/field work in the year 1979. Thereafter, on 26.07.1990, his services were regularised as Assistant Lineman. Ultimately, on 31.12.2015, he retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation but the respondentdepartment while fixing the pensionary benefits has not counted his daily wages service period i.e. 1979 to 26.07.1990 towards "qualifying service". The Sonika 2018.02.08 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.2565 OF 2018 --2-- petitioner moved various representations but no conscious decision has been taken. Even, he served legal notice dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure P-7) upon the respondents, but neither it fetch any reply nor any conscious decision has been taken. He submits that petitioner feels satisfied in case direction is issued to respondent No.1 to decide aforesaid legal notice, within a stipulated period. 3.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1-Managing Director, UHBVNL, Vidyut Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula to look into the grievances unfolded by the petitioner in legal notice dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure P-7) and to take a conscious decision, by passing a speaking order, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

4.

However, if the petitioner still feels aggrieved against any of the order(s) passed by the concerned authority, he shall be at liberty to approach this Court as well as to have recourse to the other remedies available to him under law.

FEBRUARY 05, 2018 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No Sonika 2018.02.08 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh