Mukkan Alias Mookan v. Union Territory Chandigarh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-5080-2020 Date of decision: 10.11.2025 Mukkan alias Mookan

...Petitioner

Versus

Union Territory Chandigarh and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE




    

Present:

Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gurleen Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. Lajwant S. Virk, Advocate, for the respondent.

****



  , J. (Oral) 1.

In the present case, challenge is to the order dated 30.05.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby petition filed by petitioner herein was dismissed as being time barred.

2.

After arguing for some time, as disputed question of fact exists even as per the document submitted by the petitioner himself i.e. whether the date of birth of the petitioner can be treated as May 1966 instead of February 1960, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present writ petition may kindly be disposed having been not pressed any further with liberty to avail the remedy before the Civil Court to prove that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 15.05.1966 and not 03.02.1960.

3.

Ordered accordingly.


 


)










































 







Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.12 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document