← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/28717/2025disposed of

Shraddha v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited And Others

2025-09-24Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-28717-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.09.2025 Shraddha ....Petitioner

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Singh Bhatti, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 29.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by Assistant Executive Engineer - respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner was given additional charge of the post of Assistant Accounts Officer which was lying vacant and she is holding the charge for the last one year and eleven months without any additional increment or monetary benefit being paid to her. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to grant additional monetary benefits attached to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer from 29.09.2023 till its actual realization. It is also prayed that during the

pendency of the writ petition, the operation of the order dated 29.09.2023, may be stayed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was serving as a Revenue Accountant and she was given additional charge of Assistant Accounts Officer on 29.09.2023 as discernible from the order dated 29.09.2023 (Annexure P-1). As per the Instructions of the respondent/Department dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-2), no employee can be posted on a higher post for more than three months. However, despite filling various representations and a subsequent legal notice dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-7), the claim of the petitioner has not been decided. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 3.

Learned counsel for the respondents, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to the respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision on the legal notice dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner by passing a speaking order.

4.

Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the legal notice dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receiving a

certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2.

5.

Disposed of, accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 24.09.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No