Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA versus THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Union of India v. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cha - CWP-19888-CAT-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 2559 (25 April 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C.W.P.No.19888-CAT of 2002

Date of Decision : May 03, 2006.

Union of India .... Petitioner

Vs.

The Central Administrative Tribunal,

Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh & others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar

Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Patwalia

* * *

Present : Mr.Deepak Thapar, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.H.S.Saini, Advocate

for Mr.D.R.Sharma, Advocate

for respondent no.2.

* * *

J.S.Khehar, J. (Oral) :

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein has impugned the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in OA No.532/HR/2001, decided on 16.4.2002. A perusal of the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, referred to above, reveals that the learned counsel representing the petitioner herein , had not disputed the fact, and in fact, conceded the position that the controversy raised in Original Application No.532/HR/2001 was precisely the same, as has been decided by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in "S.R.Dhingra C.W.P.No.19888-CAT of 2002 : 2 :

and others vs. Chairman, Railway Board and others O.A. No.2425 of 2000, decided on 22.2.2002". The factual position noticed herein above is still acknowledged by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein. He further states that the decision rendered by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in S.R.Dhingra's case (supra) , is now the subject matter of challenge and that the relief due to the petitioner, should be in terms of the final determination of the controversy in S.R.Dhingra's case (supra). This position is accepted by the learned counsel representing respondent no.2.

In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a rider that respondent no.2 will be entitled to such benefits alone as are eventually determined on the final outcome of the controversy in S.R.Dhingra's case (supra) .

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

( J.S.Khehar )

Judge

May 03, 2006 ( P.S.Patwalia )

monika Judge


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.