IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 5951-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision: April 1, 2010 Pardeep Singh …Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the case for some time has stated that Original Application No. 223-PB-2009, filed by the petitioner, may be permitted to be withdrawn. The aforesaid prayer is based on the fact that the petitioner has earlier filed O.A. No. 40/PB/2009, in which the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) has relegated the petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction. Mr. Jaideep Verma further submits that once the earlier O.A. has been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction then the Tribunal should not have expressed any opinion CWP No. 5951 of 2010 on the later Original Application (O.A. No. 223-PB-2009). The expression of opinion by the Tribunal would prejudice the rights of the petitioner even to approach the court of competent jurisdiction. After hearing learned counsel we are of the view that the prayer made merits acceptance. Accordingly, we permit the petitioner to withdraw O.A. No. 223-PB-2009 and M.A. 234 of 2009. As a consequence, any opinion expressed in the order dated 27.3.2009 (P-17), subject matter of challenge before us, would not stand in the way of the petitioner and he would be able to pursue his remedy as per the order passed in O.A. No. 40/PB/2009. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 1, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2