Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs Pspcl And Ors on 19 September, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 19638 of 2014
Date of decision: 19.09.2014
Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 31.10.2013 when the junior to the petitioner Sh. Harpal Singh-respondent no. 5 was promoted to the said post on 06.11.2013. Consequential benefits have also been prayed for.
As per the pleaded case of the petitioner, he had joined service of Assistant Lineman on regular basis on 09.10.1979 and promoted as Lineman on 01.10.1985. Respondent no. 5 had joined service as Linesman on 30.10.1985. The case of the petitioner was considered for promotion as SHIVANI GUPTA 2014.09.23 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh per Annexure P-2 as he had a clean record and was fully eligible whereas respondent no. 5 had a charge sheet and stoppage of 2 annual increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner has not been promoted whereas, respondent no. 5 has been given promotion on 31.10.2013 and given posting. The petitioner thereafter represented on 03.12.2013 (Annexure P-
4) and thereafter, made another representation Annexure P-5, which was forwarded by the Assistant Executive Engineer to the Additional S.E., -2- Sub-Urban Division, Moga on 23.05.2014 (Annexure P-6). A legal notice dated 07.07.2014 (Annexure P-7) has also been served upon the respondent- Corporation but no action has been taken on the same.
He further submits that he would be satisfied if a time bound direction is given to the respondents to decide the said legal notice.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner and in view of the facts summarized above, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served if notice of motion is issued upon the respondents to call upon them to file the reply in view of the limited relief which the petitioner is seeking.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to take into consideration the legal notice SHIVANI GUPTA 2014.09.23 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh dated 07.07.2014 (Annexure P-7) and pass necessary orders on the same within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case the petitioner is found entitled for his claim, the same be granted to him within a period of one month thereafter. In case relief is to be denied to the petitioner, a speaking order be passed which shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.
19.09.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
shivani JUDGE
SHIVANI GUPTA
2014.09.23 15:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh