109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.02.2026 Randhir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate, Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Sudan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents for granting annual increment with effect from 01.07.2024 along with interest @ 8% per annum. Further, for issuance of directions to the respondents to take final decision on the legal notice dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) within a stipulated period which is kept pending without any decision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner joined as Peon on 16.06.1988 and was promoted as LDC on 09.09.2014. The promotion order contained a condition to pass a type test applicable only to Head Office cadre not the field staff. Although, the petitioner appeared in the type test on 06.10.2020 but he failed, after which, his annual increment was stopped from 01.07.2024 as discernible from Annexure P-1. The petitioner relied upon the instructions dated 10.05.1989 followed by notification dated 19.10.1990 in which the employees who were more than 35 years of age are exempted from type test upon attaining the age of 45 years. The petitioner was 35 years old at the time of promotion and was serving in the field staff and thus, petitioner is entitled to exemption.

3. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.12350 of 2010 titled as ‘Roshan Lal Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And others decided on 02.07.2015 (Annexure P-2) and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1711 of 2011 titled as ‘Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Phool Chand’ decided on 27.08.2013 (Annexure P-4), in which the instructions of 1989 and 1990 were considered and the impugned action of the respondent-Corporation was quashed on the ground of not clearing the type test. He served a legal notice on 18.08.2025 (Annexure P-

5) which remained unheeded.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner is decided by respondents No.2 & 3 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondents No.2 & 3 for time- bound consideration and decision of the legal notice of the petitioner by passing a speaking order.

6. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents No.2 & 3 are directed to consider the legal notice dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner in terms of Roshan Lal’s case (supra) and Phool Chand’s case (supra) and pass a speaking order, after affording him an opportunity to be heard, within a period of one month 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 respondents No.2 & 3.

7. Disposed of, accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

06.02.2026 Neha