Dismissed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Aug 2015CWP/7198/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposed of connected Writ Petitions challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order reinforcing respondents (Civilian Heavy Vehicle Drivers). The bench declined to interfere, upholding the Tribunal's view that termination was unjustified given the employees' satisfactory ten-month service.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the Writ Petitions challenging the C.A.T.'s order of reinstatement.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Central… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

[1] Civil Writ Petition No.7198 of 2015 Date of Decision: August 06, 2015

¶3

Union of India and another ...Petitioners

¶4

versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench & another .....Respondents

¶5

[2] Civil Writ Petition No.13770 of 2015 Union of India and others ...Petitioners versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench & others .....Respondents [3] Civil Writ Petition No.7276 of 2015 Union of India and others ...Petitioners versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench & others .....Respondents [4] Civil Writ Petition No.7295 of 2015 Union of India and others ...Petitioners versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench & others .....Respondents [5] Civil Writ Petition No.8444 of 2015 Union of India and others ...Petitioners versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench & another .....Respondents [6] Civil Writ Petition No.9127 of 2015 Union of India and others ...Petitioners versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench & others .....Respondents

¶6

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.26 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶7

CWP No.7198 of 2015 & connected cases

¶8

[2]

¶9

[7] Civil Writ Petition No.9819 of 2015

¶10

Union of India and others ...Petitioners

¶11

versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench & another

¶12

.....Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.

¶14

Present: Mr.P.C.Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)

¶15

-.-

¶16

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶18

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶19

¶20

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶21

This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.7198, 13770, 7276, 7295, 8444, 9127 and 9819 of 2015 as the point in issue in all these cases is common in nature. Though the impugned orders passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench are of different dates, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal has rightly ordered reinstatement of the respondents as Civilian Heavy Vehicle Drivers?

¶22

[2] For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.7198 of 2015.

¶23

[3] 2^nd respondent applied for the post of Civilian Motor Driver (OG) in response to the advertisement issued by the petitioner-authorities in January, 2011. The eligibility qualification was matriculation alongwith minimum three years' experience of driving heavy vehicles. Respondent No.2 was selected and offered appointment on 25.07.2011.

¶24

[4] Services of respondent No.2 were terminated on 22.05.2012 on the ground that the experience certificate relied

¶25

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.26 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

CWP No.7198 of 2015 & connected cases [3]

¶27

upon by him was invalid as “it was issued prior to the date of issue of heavy driving licence”.

¶28

[5] The Tribunal has found, as a matter of fact, that as per the experience certificate, respondent No.2 had been driving truck since May, 2007 to July, 2010 though he was granted the heavy vehicle driving licence only on 27.09.2008. The Tribunal has further found that even if his experience was counted from 27.09.2008 onwards, respondent No.2 fell short of two months experience and since he had already worked for 10 months, the authorities were not justified in terminating his services. The orders passed by the Tribunal in the connected cases are also more or less based upon the same reason.

¶29

[6] When these cases came up for preliminary hearing, we directed the petitioner-authorities to file an affidavit as to whether the work performance and conduct of respondent No.2 during the service period of 10 months was satisfactory or not? In response thereto, petitioner No.2 has filed the affidavit dated 10.07.2015, para-3 whereof reads as follows:-

¶30

“....3. That with regard to the same, petitioners submit herein that during the period, respondent No.2 herein remained in service, there was no complaint against the individual and he has not been awarded any punishment during his service. His work performance, driving skills and conduct during the period he remain in service was satisfactory....”

¶31

[7] Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.2 was selected through a competitive process and he worked to

¶32

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.26 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶33

CWP No.7198 of 2015 & connected cases [4]

¶34

the entire satisfaction of the authorities coupled with the fact that his 'driving licence' and 'experience certificate' are otherwise found to be genuine, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly intervened in the matter, as the services of respondent No.2 ought not to have been terminated due to short-fall of heavy vehicles driving experience for two months when he had already served as a heavy vehicle driver for 10 months to the entire satisfaction of the authorities.

¶35

[8] For the reasons afore-stated, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶36

[9] Dismissed.

¶37

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

¶38

August 06, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE

¶39

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.26 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶40

CWP No.7198 of 2015 & connected cases

¶41

[5]

¶42

CM No.9272 of 2015 in CWP No.7198 of 2015

¶43

¶44

Union of India and others

¶45

versus

¶46

Central Administrative Tribunal,Chandigarh Bench and others

¶47

Present : Mr.P.C.Goyal, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioners. * * *

¶48

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the

¶49

same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and additional affidavit is taken on record.

¶50

CM stands disposed of.

¶51

( SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶52

August 06, 2015 (P.B.BAJANTHRI) mohinder JUDGE

¶53

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.26 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varinder Singh @ Raja Vs State of Punjab

Harsimranjit Kaur Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

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

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

Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.