Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEVINDER SINGH & ORS versus CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHE

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Devinder Singh & Ors v. Central Administrative Tribunal and othe - CWP-16400-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8212 (10 October 2006)

CWP NO. 16400 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO. 16400 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 16.10.2006

Devinder Singh and others ..Petitioners

Versus

Central Administrative Tribunal and others ....Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND

PRESENT: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners.

J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)

The petitioners were inducted into the service of the respondents as Motor Pump Attendant, Carpenter, Wireman and Mason before the year 1986. Be that as it may, they were regularised as Mazdoors in the year 1987. The petitioners contested the action of the respondents in having regularised them as Mazdoors by filing OA No.712-PB of 2005 i.e.

more than 18 years ago after they had been regularised as Mazdoors. The Central Administrative Tribunal declined to interfere in the claim raised by the petitioners holding, that the claim raised by the petitioners was barred by limitation. We find no infirmity in the determination at the hands of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It would be pertinent to mention that the solitary contention raised by the petitioners was that the instructions dated 17.3.1986, on the basis of which the petitioners were not regularised against the posts held by them but were regularised as Mazdoors, were subsequently set aside by the CWP NO. 16400 of 2006 2

Central Administrative Tribunal through an order dated 10.8.2000 passed in OA No.1194-PB of 1987. The plea that in some other case the same instructions, under which the claim of the petitioners was declined was set aside, is of no consequence, as the same cannot be a basis for extending the period of limitation statutorily prescribed under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

( S.D. Anand )

October 16, 2006. Judge

vig


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.