Padam Singh v. Union Of India & ORS.

/ $-27, 28, 30 & 31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) 7610/2015. CM APPL.14774/2015 PADAM SINGH Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Respondents W.P. (C) 7613/2015, CM APPL.14777/2015 PARTAPSINGH;

Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Respondents W.P. (C) 7618/2015. CM APPL.14784/2015 RAJ SINGH Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Respondents W.P. (C^ 7625/2015.

CM APPL.14795/2015 HEM RAJ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Respondents Appearance: Mr. O.P. Aggarwal with Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocates for petitioners in all matters.

Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC for R-1 in item no.27. Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for UOI in item no.31. Mr. Gaurav Rohilla, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

ORDER

% 12.08.2015 When the respondents, who appeared on advance notice, pointed out that the petitionershave not even approachedthem with a By:AMULYA

grievance, learned counsel for the petitioners sought liberty to withdraw the writ petitions and prefer representations. In case, the respondents, Seema Sashastra Bal ("SSB") receive representations with regard to the grant of ACP benefits, it is hereby directed that such representations of the petitioners shall be decided after due verification of the records and the decision or appropriate order communicated directly to the petitioners with speaking order within four weeks of the receipt of such representations. In case the SSB receives similar representations from other employees, they too shall be decided and the decision communicated in four weeks of receipt of such employees' representations. This is to eliminate the need of aggrieved parties coming to the Court seeking directions in that regard and also to preclude them from approaching the Court directly.

The writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn in the above manner.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J fLt.

DEEPA SHARMA, J AUGUST 12, 2015 IvikasI