JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against an award dated 2.3.2000 published on 5.12.2000. This Court by an interim order dated 9.4.2001 stayed operation of the award, provided the petitioner reinstates respondent No. 2 within one month and pays his salary regularly for the period he works. It is stated that petitioner reinstated respondent- workman. The matter came up for consideration before this Court and this Court by an order dated 9.4.2006 while clarifying the interim order dated 1.9.2006 directed that respondent-workman shall be paid salary/wages which the other counterparts working on the same post are getting. It was also directed that the current salary shall be paid to the respondent No. 2 regularly month by month from October, 2006. The arrears of salary/wages from the date of reinstatement till September, 2006 shall be paid within six months from the date of order.
2. Respondent-workman approached this Court with an application stating therein that the interim order has not been complied with and the current salary as directed by this Court has not been paid to him.
3. This Court by an order dated 9.11.2006, passed following order:
Supplementary affidavit is taken on record.
By an order dated 1.9.2006, this Court directed the petitioner to pay current salary to respondent No. 2 regularly month by month from October, 2006.
Learned Counsel for the respondent no 2 states that he has not received any salary inspite of this order.
The Chairman, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation shall appear before this Court on 5.12.2006 to explain his conduct and to show why appropriate proceedings should not be initiated against him for willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 1.9.2006. In case of compliance is made, he need not appear and has to file the affidavit of compliance on the date fixed.
4. Petitioner has filed an affidavit of Sri Anupam Kumar Dubey, an Assistant Clerk 11 in the Office of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation, District Aligarh. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the order has been complied with and in support his statement, he has filed affidavit of Sri Anupam Kumar Dubey, Assistant Clerk II and also handedover a cheque to learned Counsel for respondent-workman in the Court which was accepted by learned Counsel for respondent-workman under the interim orders of the Court. It was pointed out to learned Counsel for petitioner that the direction was to the Chairman, U.P.S.R.T.C. to appear before the Court and in case of compliance of the interim order, his affidavit was required to be filed, but in his place an Assistant Clerk II has filed affidavit of compliance. On the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the matter was posted for today. Today, learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of compliance of Sri Shambhu Nath working as Chairman, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter at Lucknow, wherein it has been stated that in compliance to the order of this Court dated 9.4.2001 as modified on 1.9.2006 as well as order dated 9.11.2006 and the difference of current salary for the month of October, 2006 has already been paid.
5. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2-workman states that the similarly situated employees are getting more salary than the respondent No. 2. For this purpose, respondent-workman may represent to the competent authority for redressal of his grievance and in case any such application is filed, the same shall be decided in accordance with law.
6. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that normal practice of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation as well as other Corporations and the Departments of the State Government is to file affidavits through clerks. This practice cannot be appreciated apart from the reason that it is showing discourtesy to the Court as held by this Court in the case law reported in 1993 A.W.C. p. 99, Ravikaran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. This Court considered this aspect and has observed as follows in Paragraph-5 of the judgment, which is being reproduced:
In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf fo the State respondents this statement of fact that the revenue had been paid by the petitioner has not been specifically denied. The Court further notices that beyond this, not much credibility can be placed on this counter affidavit, for the simple reason that it has been affirmed by a peshkar to the Tehsildar, District Badna. The party respondent, in a reference to the context, is the District Magistrate, Banda. The counter affidavit is a discourtesy to the Court and the Chief Standing Counsel U.P. will ensure that such affidavits are not filed before the High Court. This Court expects that party respondents shall file their affidavits instead of deputing their clerks to do so on their behalf.
7. In another judgment , Baburam Agarwalla v. Jamunadas Ramji & Co. Calcutta High Court has also taken note of this aspect and held as follows in Paragraph-7:
[7] Repeated observations have been made by the learned Judges of this Court on this point and strong objections have been taken to the practice of having affidavits affirmed by subordinate clerks. It is absolutely essential in my opinion in interlocutory proceedings where the Court is asked to make an order on affidavits only that such affidavits on which Courts are asked to act must be from persons who could be relied upon and on whose affidavit it will be safe for the Courts to proceed. The persons in most cases who should make the affidavits are naturally the parties themselves and this is particularly so when personal allegations such as those made in the present case are made against a particular party. It may be that in some cases a party to the suit may not be a proper person to swear an affidavit in which case the Court will certainly rely on the affidavit of an employee or an agent of his who could show his competence and acquaintance with the facts of the case. That is not only desirable but also convenient. But it must be distinctly understood that it is the exception rather than the rule.
8. Considering the facts of the case as well as the normal practice adopted by the Government Departments, Corporations and Local Bodies are filing affidavits through the Clerks, this Court is of the firm view that this practice should not be allowed to continue in future.
9. In view of the discussions made above, in future all the affidavits or counter affidavits for or against by the Government Departments, Local Bodies, Corporations and any authority having instrumentality of the State shall be filed by an officer authorised to file the same and not by the Clerk of such offices.
10. Registry is directed to send copy of this order within a week to Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh for compliance.