Union Of India & ORS v. Vinod Parkash & ANR

CWP-3201-2013 -1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3201-2013 Date of Decision: March 27, 2017 Union of India and others .....Petitioners

Versus

Vinod Prakash 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.Pankaj Gupta, Sr.Panel counsel for UOI for the petitioners.

Mr.Aman Chaudhary, Advocate with Mr.R.S.Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.1 Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate for respondent No.2 ........

SURYA KANT, J.

In view of the fact that in two identical cases, i.e. one in CWP No.11981-CAT-2013 (Union of India and others vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and another) decided on 27.01.2017 and another CWP No.14795-2013 (Union of India and others vs Charan Dass and another) of even date, the authorities have implemented the Tribunal's orders coupled with the fact that the observations made by the Tribunal is one of the plausible view, we find no valid ground to deviate from the directions issued by the Tribunal. Meenu 2017.04.05 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CWP-3201-2013 -2The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that let the directions issued by the Tribunal directing the competent authority to grant consideration afresh be complied with on the analogy of Union of India and others vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and another and Charan Dass and others' cases (supra), and necessary benefit be granted to the first respondent as well.

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

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2017.04.05 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh