Union Of India And ORS v. Central Administrative Tribunal And ORS

CWP-11981-CAT-2013 (O&M) -1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11981-CAT-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 27, 2017 Union of India and others .....Petitioners

Versus

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.P.C.Goyal, Advocate for petitioner No.1.

Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate for petitioners-BSNL.

Mr.Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

This writ petition assails the order dated 01.06.2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, `the Tribunal'), whereby the petitioner-authorities were directed to reconsider the matter of upgradation of `Annual Confidential Reports' (ACRs) of respondent No.2. The Tribunal observed that the Reviewing Authority diluted the ACR for the year 2005-06 and first part of ACR 200708 from `very good' to `good', as a result of which the second respondent was unable to achieve the benchmark for promotion. The Tribunal further Meenu 2017.02.01 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CWP-11981-CAT-2013 (O&M) -2found that respondent No.2 was consistently graded as `very good' or `outstanding' hence there were circumstances warranting reconsideration for the upgradation of his two reports, referred above. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly state that during pendency of this writ petition, the Tribunal's order has been complied with and the matter re: upgradation of ACRs of respondent No.2 has been reconsidered.

Since the view taken by the Tribunal is one of the plausible views and the directions issued by it have since been complied with, we are satisfied that no interference with the order under challenge is called for. The writ petition is, accordingly dismissed on merits as well as being infructuous.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE January 27, 2017 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2017.02.01 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh