SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to have worked as a part time sweeper with the respondents continuously for a period of 15 years without any break. On the basis of his aforesaid uninterrupted continuation in service, he claims regularisation under the policy instructions of the State Government. Since the claim of the petitioner was not being considered by the authorities, the petitioner is stated to have issued a legal notice dated 9.1.2006 (Annexure P5). It is, however, pointed out that no decision has been taken thereon by the respondents.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will be satisfied if the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 i.e. the Treasury Officer, Jind, requiring him to take a final decision on his legal notice dated 9.1.2006 (Annexure P5).

(3.) In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition by directing respondent No3 i.e. the Treasury Officer, Jind , to take a final decision on the legal notice dated 9.1.2006 (Annexure P5 , by passing a well reasoned speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly.