C.O.C.P No. 189 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.O.C.P. No. 189 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 14, 2009 Bal Kishan and another .....Petitioners Versus Luxmi Kant Yadav .....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondent in person with Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab. T.P.S.MANN, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent on the ground that a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated April 17, 2007 disposed of CWP No. 5468 of 2007 filed on behalf of the petitioners with a direction to the respondent to take a final decision on their representation dated 9.2.2007 by passing a well reasoned speaking order within two months from the date of the receipt of the said order, but the same was not done. As is clear from the additional affidavit dated 1.12.2008 submitted by the respondent, speaking order has already been passed in C.O.C.P No. 189 of 2008 -2- respect of SPO Bal Kishan on 2.4.2008. However, speaking order in respect of Bikkar Singh-petitioner could not be issued due to some misunderstanding. After seeking guidance of the office of Director General of Police, speaking order in respect of Bikkar Singh-petitioner was passed on 4.10.2008 for not taking him back into service. However, on re- examining the aforementioned order, it was felt that there remained lacuna regarding the decision of paying for the intervening period from discharge to both the petitioners. Therefore, in continuation, another order was passed on 14.11.2008 by explaining the detailed position of paying for the intervening period from discharge to the petitioners being not admissible on the basis of 'no work no pay' and pensionary benefits also not admissible to Bikkar Singh-petitioner, his service being purely of temporary in nature. Copy of the order dated 14.11.2008 has been placed on record as Annexure R-IV/T. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings against the order dated 14.11.2008 (Annexure R- IV/T), if so advised. ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 14, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1 C.O.C.P No. 189 of 2008 -3-