Remanded

Bal Krishan v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Dec 2014CWP/23474/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition concerning senior Army officers' posting disputes. The Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits, noting the Tribunal's cryptic order and admission that the relevant policy was under review.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition allowed; Tribunal order set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits.

Bal Krishan Vs Union of India and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CM No.14936-CWP-2014 in/and CWP No.23474 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.12.2014

¶4

¶5

Lieutenant Colonel Bal Krishan

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

VS.

¶8

UOI & Ors. ... Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶11

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Present: Mr. NR Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner

¶17

Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate for UOI

¶18

¶19

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶20

CM No.14936-CWP-2014

¶21

Additional affidavit dated 26.11.2014 along with documents Annexure P18 to P20 is taken on record subject to just exceptions.

¶22

CM stands disposed of.

¶23

CWP No.23474 of 2013 (O&M)

¶24

(1) The petitioner in his Original Application No.143 of 2010 raised an issue of paramount importance which has significant bearing on the internal functioning of the Army establishment and the rights, if any, of the senior Officers in the matter of seeking their posting as per rank and status.

¶25

V.VISHAL 2014.12.22 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

��

¶27

�� ��

¶28

(2) The Tribunal unfortunately passed a cryptic order dated 19.11.2010 without deciding the main issue though observing that the petitioner’s grievance had been redressed “for the time being”.

¶29

(3) Unless the issue raised by the petitioner is adjudicated on merits, he might be forced to approach the Tribunal as and when he is asked to join a post which is not commensurate to the rank and status enjoyed by him. As noticed at the outset the other similarly-placed Officers, who too might be aggrieved of their posting also need not be compelled to approach the Tribunal. Such a recourse would not be in the interest of discipline or the moral of the Armed Forces. Pertinently, the Tribunal has subsequently dismissed the petitioner’s execution application observing that its order is not executable.

¶30

(4) The respondents have filed their reply to the replication today. We may at this stage refer to the stand taken by the official respondents before the Tribunal on the strength of a Policy on ‘cadre management issue’. It was indeed acknowledged before the Tribunal that the aforesaid Policy permitting the officers in the rank of Major to be posted as AGE was “currently under review”. It was obvious that the respondents themselves admitted that the policy-regime was not aptly tuned and required to be re-visited. If that is so, the Tribunal ought to have called upon the respondents to place on record the final decision that they might have taken after review of the offending policy. We would thus not express any

¶31

V.VISHAL 2014.12.22 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶32

��

¶33

�� ��

¶34

views on merits at this stage but are firmly of the view that the Tribunal ought to formulate the relevant issues and address with specific findings.

¶35

(5) Consequently, we allow the writ petition; set aside the order dated 19.11.2010 or the subsequent orders passed in the case of the petitioner and remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits.

¶36

(6) Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.01.2015.

��

��

�� 

V.VISHAL 2014.12.22 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Bal Krishan v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Krishan v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Jagdish Chander and Ors.

Dev Dutt & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Pooja Thakur Vs U.T. Administration and Ors.

Ishwar Dutt Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ranjit Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kishana and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.