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 1, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India And Others vs Joginder Singh And Another ... on 6 December, 2010

Author: Ritu Bahri

Bench: Ritu Bahri

C.W.P. No. 21609 of 2010                                        -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                            C.W.P. No. 21609 of 2010
                            Date of Decision 06.12.2010

Union of India and others                          -----Petitioners
                                Versus
Joginder Singh and another                         ---Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:   Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate
           for the petitioners.


1.   To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2.   Whether the judgment should be reported in
     the Digest?


M.M. KUMAR, J.

1. The instant petition preferred by the Union of India is directed against order dated 17.09.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal') holding that the matter is covered by the judgment delivered by this Court rendered in the case of Commander Works Engineer, Headquarters, Ambala Cantt. v. Sukhdev Singh and others (CWP No. 19802-CAT of 2006) decided on 17.04.2009 and Union of India and others v. Baldev Singh and others (CWP No. 18963- CAT of 2003), decided on 17.04.2009. The Tribunal has also placed reliance on its earlier order dated 30.05.2007 rendered in the case of Bhag Singh v. Union of India (OA No. 223/CH/06).

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the matter is covered by the order C.W.P. No. 21609 of 2010 -2- passed by this Court as well as by the Tribunal. There is no distinguishing feature pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners between the matters already decided and the case in hand.

3. The petition does not merit admission and the same is dismissed.

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE December 06, 2010 Atul