Dismissed

Sukhwinder Kaur & Ors. v. Central Admn. Tribunal Chandigarh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Jan 2015CWP/18331/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order granting accelerated seniority to reserved category employees in PGIMER, accepting counsel's submission that the legal issue on M.Nagaraj preconditions should be decided in a separate case pending before the court.

What did the court decide?

Respondents No. 4 to 6 and petitioners considered for promotion as soon as eligible; official respondents to give effect to Tribunal's seniority order for leave out service.

Sukhwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs Central… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.18331-CAT of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.01.2015

¶4

¶5

Mrs Sukhwinder Kaur & Ors. ... Petitioners

¶6

VS.

¶7

CAT Chandigarh & Ors.

¶8

... 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. RD Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners

¶17

Mr. Rajesh Garg, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nimrata Shergill, Advocate for PGIMER

¶18

¶19

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶20

(1) The order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) in the matter of inter-se- seniority amongst the Reserved Category employees (the petitioners) and the General Category employees (the private respondents), is under challenge in the instant writ petition. The Tribunal has viewed that the petitioners were granted accelerated seniority contrary to the dictum in M.Nagaraj’s 1 case which was followed by the Tribunal in the identical circumstances in OA No.404/CH/2012 titled as

¶21

Kamlesh Florence & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 15.11.2012.

¶22

�� �� ��

¶23

V.VISHAL 2015.02.25 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶24

��

¶25

�� ��

¶26

(2) The PGIMER – respondent No.2 has put in appearance and its learned senior counsel states at the bar that out of 22 posts of Deputy Nursing Superintendent, 11 posts are lying vacant against which the petitioners as well as the private respondents, namely, the Assistant Nursing Superintendents can well be promoted. It is further pointed out that respondent No.4 to 6 would be attaining eligibility on 19.02.2015. In the light of the abovenoticed peculiar facts, learned counsel for the petitioners and the PGIMER are right in contending that this Court need not to dwell upon the legal issue, namely, whether or not the pre-condition laid down in M.Nagaraj were followed before extending the benefit of reservation to the petitioners? They submit that such an issue can be effectively gone into by this Court in other cases where the Tribunal has passed identical orders and the matter is under consideration before this Court. We find merit in the above-noticed submission. Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:-

¶27

i. Let respondents No.4 to 6 as well as the petitioners be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Nursing Superintendents in February, 2015 as soon as the former attain eligibility and subject to their suitability and other eligibility conditions, all of them can be promoted by way of common order.

¶28

V.VISHAL 2015.02.25 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶29

��

¶30

�� ��

¶31

ii. Owing to their left out service, the official respondents would give effect to the order passed by the Tribunal for the purpose of inter-se - seniority.

¶32

iii. However, if this Court, in other cases which are pending consideration, takes a view in favour of reserved category candidates, the petitioners shall indeed be at liberty to approach the competent authority to seek appropriate relief in accordance with such judgement.

¶33

(3) The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶34

�� 

¶35

��  �� ��

¶36

V.VISHAL 2015.02.25 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Sukhwinder Kaur & Ors. v. Central Admn. Tribunal Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Kaur & Ors. v. Central Admn. Tribunal Chandigarh & 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

Union of India Vs Gurbax Singh & Anr.

Harjinder Singh Vs Director, Rural Devlp and Panchayat Deptt. and Ors.

Gurnam Singh and Ors. Vs Director Rural Development and Panchayats Department Punjab and Ors.

Kanchan Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Union of India Vs Darshan Lal Bali

Union of India and Ors. Vs Banarsi Dass