J.S.Khehar, J. - (1.) Petitioner No.1 is stated to have retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/4/2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that while determining his retiral benefits, the respondents have not taken into consideration the work charge service rendered by him. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by this court in Chhajju Ram v. Chief Account Officer and others (Civil Writ Petition No.2300 of 1997 decided on 14/10/1997) and Kailash Chander v. Chief Account Officer and others, (Civil Writ Petition No.7003 of 2003 decided on 27/1/2004). To seek the same relief, in the instant writ petition, the petitioner is claimed to have addressed legal notice to the respondents on 14/10/2005, Annexure P2. It is, however, contended that no decision has been taken by the respondents on the aforestated legal notice.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner No.1 will be satisfied if the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 i.e. The Executive Engineer, 'OP' Division, Dakshin Haryana, Bijli Vitran Nigam, Hansi, District Hisar requiring him to take a final decision on the aforestated legal notice dated 14/10/2005 (Annexure P2).
(3.) In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim raised by petitioner No.1, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition with a direction to respondent No.4 i.e. The Executive Engineer, 'OP' Division, Dakshin Haryana, Bijli Vitran Nigam, Hansi, District Hisar, to take a final decision on the legal notice dated 14/10/2005 (Annexure P-2), by passing a well reasoned speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.;