Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited And Anr vs Central Administrative Tribunal, ... on 16 October, 2014
Bench: Surya Kant, Shekher Dhawan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.20774 of 2014
Date of Decision: October 16, 2014
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another .....Petitioners
versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DR.SHEKHER DHAWAN.
Present: Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate, for the petitioners.
-.-
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)
The petitioners challenge the impugned interlocutory orders dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P-3) and 29.08.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby they have been directed to depute respondent Nos.2 & 3 to participate in the training of Junior Telecom Officers (T) which is an essential condition for further promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officer under the Junior Telecom Officer Recruitment Rules, 2001.
The Tribunal had earlier passed somewhat similar order in favour of one Pardip Kumar Panigraphy though subject to the condition that the said employee shall execute an indemnity bond of Rs.2 lacs in favour of the petitioner- authorities. Against that order, the petitioner-authorities came to this Court by way of CWP No.15055 of 2014 (Bharat Sanchar MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.10.28 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20774 of 2014 [2] Nigam Limited and another versus Sh.Pardip Kumar Panigraphy and another) but on 01.08.2014 we declined to interfere with the same observing that rights of the petitioners had been adequately protected.
Though the Tribunal has not imposed the condition of execution of any indemnity bond by respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the orders under challenge, but nothing precludes the petitioners to obtain such an indemnity bond from the private-respondents before deputing them to the above-mentioned training.
With liberty to that extent, we decline to interfere with the impugned order.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
October 16, 2014 [Dr.SHEKHER DHAWAN]
Mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR
2014.10.28 11:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh