Union Of India vs. N. Venakatesh

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).1077/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS C.A.PRAHALLADH RAO & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP) Date: 23/04/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr A Deb Kumar, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.

êITEM NO.18 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IVA

Ms Neha, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Day in and day out everybody is complaining about delay in judicial process. The real reasons are lying in real practice before the Courts. In the present case original dispute is pertaining to some service condition of respondents, who are serving under the petitioner. Petitioner have filed this SLP in January, 2012 when Court has passed an

-2-

Item No.18

For Respondent(s)

order to issue notice. As per Supreme Court Rules, services are to be completed within six months. On 14.3.2012 it has been disclosed that except respondent No.5 all other respondents are represented through the ld. Advocate,

Mr Shailesh Madiyal since he accepts notice before the Court. Therefore, petitioner has to confirm service upon respondent no.5 who is also serving under them. However, no steps are taken till date. Petitioner has failed to pay process fee and spare copies and even failed to take appropriate steps by selecting appropriate mode of service to confirm service of notice upon respondent No.5. It goes without saying that when respondent No.5 is claiming some monetary, benefit which is granted by the impugned order, it would be easy for the petitioner to confirm service of notice upon him, which can be easily affixed with the salary slip of any month. Even Supreme Court Rules also provides that whenever service is to be completed upon a person who is in service, notice can be served through the Head of Department.

Herein petitioner are employers and Head of Department. Therefore, it would be easy for them to confirm service.

While dictating the above situation, the ld. Advocate for the petitioner has requested to grant one weeks' time to see that notice upon respondent No.5 is served at the earliest. It seems that probably there may be change in status of respondent No.5 as appraised by the ld. Advocate for the remaining respondents. Such fact cannot be foreign to his employers, when dispute is pertaining to monetary benefit due to service rules.

-3-

Item No.18

In any case, petitioner has to take appropriate steps to confirm service upon respondent No.5 or to take appropriate steps if his status is changed, on or before 10.5.2012.

If proper steps are not taken, list before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers against the unserved respondent.

Served respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks.

(S.G.SHAH) REGISTRAR