This order disposed of three connected writ petitions (C.W.P.s 11738-40-CAT of 2010) because respondents' counsel stated petitioners were adjusted in Chandigarh Administration and not sent to the Corporation, rendering petitions infructuous.
The petitions were disposed of as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No. 11738-CAT of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 11738-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision 18.08.2010
Santosh Rani and others -----Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ---Respondents
C.W.P. No. 11739-CAT of 2010
Surender Chopra and others -----Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ---Respondents
C.W.P. No. 11740-CAT of 2010
Manpreet Kaur and others
-----Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ---Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Nimrata Shergill, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
This order shall dispose of three writ petitions bearing Nos. 11738, 11739 and 11740-CAT of 2010 as all the writ petitions have emerged from a common judgment dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal').
On 20.07.2010, a statement was made on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to the effect that on account of option
C.W.P. No. 11738-CAT of 2010 -2-
notice published in The Tribune dated 09.07.2010, all the petitioners were adjusted in the Chandigarh Administration. On that date, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought time to seek instructions. After obtaining instructions, he states that the petitioners shall be satisfied, if they are adjusted in the Chandigarh Administration and not sent to the Corporation. The aforesaid statement made on 20.07.2010 has been reiterated by Ms. Nimrata Shergill, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and she states that the petitioners shall be adjusted in the Chandigarh Administration and shall not be sent to the Corporation.
In view of the above, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of
connected cases.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
August 18, 2010 Atul
Santosh Rani
Union of India
M.M. Kumar
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
