Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Chand Sharma And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 3 December, 2010
Civil Writ Petition No.21546 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.21546 of 2010
Date of Decision: December 03, 2010
Suresh Chand Sharma and others ..Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ..Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:- Mr. I.D.Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reports or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M.KUMAR,J.
The Instant petition is directed against order dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh ( for brevity " the Tribunal") in MA No. 2077 of 2010 in OA No.2636 of 2010 and MA No.2621 of 2010 in OA No. 2181 of 2010.
Admittedly, there is a serious dispute with regard to the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Engineer (Q.S.& C). The Departmental Promotion Committee is meeting to consider the Junior Engineers for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers (Q.S.& C). However, the names of the petitioners are not being considered for their promotions because in accordance with the seniority fixed by the Department, they are beyond the zone of Civil Writ Petition No.21546 of 2010 2 consideration. The Tribunal has found a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners and has directed, by an interim order (which is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition) that the departmental Promotion Committee may proceed, but five vacancies in the promotional cadre of Assistant Engineer (Q.S. & C) be kept vacant for the petitioners.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and find that a balance view has been taken by the Tribunal. On the one hand, the Tribunal could not have stopped the promotions of all Junior Engineers to the posts of Assistant Engineers and on the other hand, could not have refused to protect the interests of the petitioners. Accordingly, a balance view has been taken by the Tribunal by allowing the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee to go on yet the Tribunal has also protected the interests of the petitioners by reserving five posts in the promotional cadre. In our opinion, the Tribunal has taken a rational view of the whole matter and all promotions have been made subject to the result of the Original Application, which is posted for hearing on 21.12.2010. Thus, we do not find any merit in the petition.
Dismissed. However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed to mean an expression of opinion on the merit of the controversy pending before the Tribunal. We hope and trust that the Tribunal would dispose of the Original Application expeditiously, preferably within six months.
( M.M.KUMAR )
JUDGE
3.12.2010 ( RITU BAHRI )
VK JUDGE