Dismissed

Union of India & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & or.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Mar 2011CWP/4979/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench discharged its duty by dismissing the writ challenge against the Tribunal order because it acknowledged that the matter had attained finality in antecedent litigation and no interim relief was required.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as the Tribunal order had attained finality and no grounds for admission were found.

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

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 4979 of 2011

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 4979 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: March 18, 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 11.02.2010 (P-10), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 69/PB/2010. The Tribunal has disposed of the Original Application filed by the original applicant-respondent Nos. 2 to 8 in terms of its earlier judgments rendered in OA Nos. 272/CH/2009 decided on 23.09.2009, 955/CH/2003 decided on 13.11.2003 and 217/HR/2004, wherein it has been held that the original applicants are entitled to facilities of the Central Government Health Scheme on usual payment of

¶17

-2-

¶18

CWP No. 4979 of 2011

¶19

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

¶23

fails and the same is dismissed.

¶24

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶25

(T.P.S. MANN)

¶26

March 18, 2011 JUDGE Atul

Union of India & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & or.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & or.

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

Mandeep Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Meenu & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Paramjit Singh Duggal @ Bittu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kavita & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rajni and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ruby & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.