Dismissed

Union of India and Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Mar 2011CWP/4637/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Constitution Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an C.A.T. order granting CGHS facilities. Relying on a finality view and a pending writ in Karnataka High Court, the Court held no interference was called for and dismissed the petition, citing a similar view by a Division Bench.

What did the court decide?

The instant petition is dismissed with no interference in the Tribunal's order.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Central… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 4637 of 2011

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 4637 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: March 15, 2011

¶6

Union of India and others

¶7

…Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Central Administrative Tribunal & others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶12

Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioners.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶16

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 25.11.2009 (P-9), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 966/CH/2009. The Tribunal has disposed of the Original Application filed by the original applicant-respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in terms of its earlier judgments rendered in OA Nos. 949/PB/2009 decided on 19.11.2009 and 272/CH/2009 decided on 29.09.2009 as well as O.As. mentioned in order dated 29.09.2009, namely, O.A. Nos. 955/CH/2003, 217/HR/2004 and 833/CH/2005, wherein it has been held that the

¶17

-2-

¶18

CWP No. 4637 of 2011

¶19

original applicants are entitled to facilities of the Central Government Health Scheme on usual payment of subscription fee at par with other Central Government pensioners for one year, which is extendable on yearly basis.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly conceded that the view taken by the Tribunal earlier has attained finality and either such orders have not been challenged further or the writ petitions challenging such orders have been dismissed.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the order passed by the Tribunal. Moreover, the relief has been granted only for a period of one year extendable on yearly basis till outcome of the writ petition pending in the High Court of Karnataka. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to admit this petition. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others (CWP No. 21622 of 2010, decided on 6.12.2010).

¶22

As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶23

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶24

(T.P.S. MANN)

¶25

March 15, 2011 JUDGE Atul

Union of India and Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Resham Singh Vs Surjit Kaur etc.

Rajinder Singh Siwatch Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ram Phal Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Hari Pal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Arun Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Malook Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.