- (1.) After noticing the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners before this Court, the following order was passed on 23.08.2012: "It is the case of the petitioners that vide order dated 23.2.2012 passed in COCP No.578 of 2012, the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioners with regard to the benefits of ACP etc. in terms of the order dated 3.12.2008 passed in CWP No.15558 of 1997, within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of order dated 23.2.2012. It is the further case of the petitioners that despite the fact that certified copy of the said order was sent to the respondents vide Annexure P-4 dated 5.3.2012, their claim has not been considered. Notice of motion for 18.10.2012."
(2.) Upon notice, respondents filed reply and after considering the averments made therein, this Court passed the following order on 30.11.2012: "Non-compliance of the order dated 23.02.2012 passed in COCP No.578 of 2012 has been alleged in this case. The aforesaid order dated 23.02.2012 reads as such: 'The petitioners are said to have claimed the benefit of ACP as a consequential benefit in terms of the order dated 03.12.2008 passed by this Court in CWP No.15558 of 1997. If such a representation has been made, this contempt petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction to the respondents to consider the above-mentioned claim of the petitioners in accordance with law and their policy decision and pass an appropriate order within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.' Upon notice, reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed. A perusal of the reply would show that the respondents have already passed office order No.228 dated 20.06.2012, which has been attached as Annexure R-2/1 with the reply. A perusal of the contempt petition would show that the same has been filed in this Court on 16.08.2012 i.e. after passing of the speaking order dated 20.06.2012. A perusal of the speaking order would show that the same has been endorsed to petitioner No.1 as well. Let an affidavit be filed by petitioner No.1 that he or any other petitioner has not received the said order or the said order was not to their knowledge. The respondent shall also file an affidavit as to whether the afore-said order was conveyed to the petitioners. Adjourned to 03.12.2012. The petitioners shall be present in Court on the next date of hearing."
(3.) Order dated 03.12.2012 may also be noticed at this stage, which reads thus: "Affidavit of the petitioner Vijay Singh has been filed in Court, wherein he has stated that till the filing of the reply by the respondents, he did not have any knowledge about the office order No.228 dated 20.6.2012. However, an additional affidavit of H.P. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, UHBVN, Sonepat, respondent No.2, has also been filed in Court, according to which, the office order in question which bears No.Ch-19-PF-1646 was endorsed to the petitioner No.1 on 11.7.2012, which was received by him on 25.7.2012. A further stand has been taken that the petitioner has also acknowledged the said receipt by putting his signatures. Petitioner No.1 is present in Court and has denied his signatures. However, a specific stand has been taken by the respondent-authorities that the petitioner is in the habit of signing in the manner shown in Annexure R-2/4. Even the Dak book of the department has been produced and the alleged signatures of the petitioner have been shown at many places. The aforesaid signatures are in the same fashion, as shown in document Annexure R-2/4. On request made on behalf of counsel for the petitioners, adjourned to 7.12.2012.";