Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kehar Singh S/O Late Shri Simru Ram vs Chandigarh Administration Through ... on 4 November, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 905/2011
in
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 616-CH of 2011
Chandigarh, this the 4th day of November, 2011
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR.KHUSHI RAM , MEMBER(A)
1. Kehar Singh s/o late Shri Simru Ram, Inspector, Economic Offences Wingh, Chandigarh Police, Chandigarh.
2. Sukhwinder Pal Singh s/o Shri Amar Chand, Inspector, Police Control Room, Chandigarh Police, Chandigarh.
APPLICANTs
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI RAMESH SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS.
VERSUS
1. Chandigarh Administration through Administrator, Union Territory Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI ARVIND MOUDGIL, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-
The OA filed by the applicant herein came to be allowed by this Bench vide order dated 19th August, 2011. A direction was, thereby, issued to the respondents to consider promoting the applicants to the posts of DSPs on the basis of the recommendations made by the DPC held in February 2011. The order did not fix any time limit within which it was to be complied with. The applicants have filed this MA for the fixture of a time limit within which the implementation of that order may come about. The averment that a number of posts of DSPs are lying vacant, is supported by an affidavit filed by one of the applicants.
3. The learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, accepted notice in the MA on 26.9.2011 and sought time to seek instructions. The matter came to be adjourned to 28.9.2011. On that day, the learned Standing Counsel sought time to have instructions about within how much time the compliance would be made. That reaction at the hands of the learned Standing Counsel came in the context of an averment made on behalf of the applicants that one of them would superannuate in the month of July 2012 and further that the respondents have not proceeded in the context to implement the order. The relevant paras of order dated 28.9.2011 are extracted hereunder:-
3. In order to buttress the plea, learned counsel points out that the one of applicants shall superannuate in the month of July, 2012. The applicants have a grievance that the respondents have not proceeded in the context to implement the order.
4. In the context of that presentation, learned counsel for the respondents states that he would have instructions about within how much time the compliance would be made.
4. On 30.9.2011, the learned Sanding Counsel informed that the respondents are not in a position to indicate any time-frame within which the compliance shall come about. He further raised a plea that the grant of requested direction shall amount to review of the order granted by the Division Bench. The matter could not be disposed of on that day as a Division Bench was not available and was ordered to be posted on 4.10.2010.
5. It is a common and accepted practice that the Tribunal grants time to the competent authority for implementing the orders which may come to be granted in allowance of an O.A. The grant of a direction in the relevant behalf is just and in accordance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as it puts the competent authority to notice to ensure that either the order is challenged in judicial review jurisdiction or it is complied with. The latter eventuality shall come about in case the competent authority opts, in its own discretion, to accept the finality of the order.
6. In the present case, it is not even an averment on behalf of the respondents that judicial review challenge has been filed against the order dated 19th August, 2011, granted in this O.A. There cannot be, obviously, a denial to the averment on behalf of the applicants that one of them will superannuate in July, 2012.
7. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Administration, when he argues that the fixture of time-limit shall amount to Review of the order granted on merits in the O.A. If this Bench omitted to fix a time limit for compliance while granting the order, the grant whereof is an accepted practice, the grant of an order fixing the time limit presently, by no stretch of imagination or interpretation, can be said to amount to review of the order.
8. In view, thus, of the fact that this O.A. came to be allowed in the month of August 2011, and there is also no denial of the affidavit-supported averment that a number of posts of DSPs are lying vacant, we have no hesitation in holding that fixing up a time-limit for compliance of the order presently would be just, proper and in the interest of justice.
9. We, accordingly, direct that the implementation of order dated 19th August, 2011 shall come about within a fortnight from today.
10. The MA shall stand allowed accordingly.
12. DASTI.
(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND) MEMBER(J) (KHUSHIRAM) MEMBER(A) Dated: October 4, 2011 `bss 1 (OA No. 616/CH/2011)