Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India Etc vs Tarsem Singh And Ors on 22 September, 2014

Bench: Surya Kant, Jaspal Singh

            IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
                      AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
                                              CWP No. 5158 of 2014. [O&M]
                                              Date of Decision:22nd September, 2014.

           Union of India                           Petitioner through
                                                    Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with
                                                    Ms. Sakshi, Advocate.
                      Versus

           Tarsem Singh & Anr.                      Respondents

                           ***

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH ***

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

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

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

*** SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] CM No. 11516 of 2014 Additional documents are taken on record.

CM stands disposed of.

MAIN CASE:

Union of India through Railway Coach Factory, Kapurthla impugns the order dated 17.01.2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench whereby administrative decision of the petitioner - Authority regarding fixation of promotional quota, has been set aside and a direction has been issued to re- examine the percentage of promotional quota and to calculate the same as per order dated 27.05.2009 passed by Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Narender Kumar Vs. Union of India, OA No. 2117 of 2005].
No sooner the matter was taken up, Mr. Puneet Jindal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly points out that the first DINESH GUPTA 2014.10.16 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 5158 of 2014. ::-2-::
respondent has since been promoted as Office Superintendent w.e.f. 01.11.2013 vide order Annexure P-8 passed on 16.05.2014, i.e., during the pendency of this writ petition.

In view of the fact that the Railway Authorities have meanwhile considered and promoted the first respondent as Office Superintendent from the due date, we are of the considered view that it would be totally an academic exercise to decide the matter on merits. We, therefore, dispose of this petition as infructuous though the questions raised therein are left open to be gone into in an appropriate case.

Disposed of. Dasti.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE September 22, 2014. ( JASPAL SINGH ) dinesh JUDGE DINESH GUPTA 2014.10.16 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document