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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1172 of 2016 Decided on : 25.09.2017 Union of India and others . . . Petitioners

Versus

Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL PRESENT: Mr. Manish Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. H.S. Ghuman, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 (in CWP No.1576 of 2016) & for respondents No.1 to 18 (in CWP No. 5145 of 2016). Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 1172, 1463, 1469, 1560, 1561, 1575, 1576, 1577, 1585, 1594, 1899, 1900, 4843, 5145 and 5146 of 2016, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved therein is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 1172 of 2016.

2.

The petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.1, whereby, the Original Application filed by the private respondents had been disposed of. 3.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the the applicantrespondent had relied upon Annexure P-5, wherein, OA No. 1846 of 2013 and other connected cases were decided on 22.05.2014. It was not disputed Jawala Ram 2017.10.03 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh by learned counsel for the petitioners-Department that as per order of the

CWP No. 1172 of 2016 - 2 - tribunal their counsel had accepted that the identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the private respondents. It was, however, pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioners herein that the learned counsel appearing on their behalf in the Tribunal has wrongly made this submission. Accordingly, a review petition is required to be filed before the Tribunal, bringing the aforesaid fact to their notice. A prayer was made that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition(s) with liberty to be petitioners to file a review petition before the Tribunal. 4.

Dismissed as withdrawn. It shall, however, be open to the petitioners to take recourse to the remedies as may be available to them, in accordance with law.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) September 25, 2017 JUDGE J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Jawala Ram 2017.10.03 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh