CWP No.14719 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14719 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: March 23, 2010 BHUPINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. PRESENT: MR. D.S. PATWALIA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS. MS. RENU BALA SHARMA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP No.14719 of 2009 and CWP Nos.18919 to 18924 of 2007 and CWP Nos.1398 and 14905 of 2010. The facts are being taken from CWP No.14719 of 2009. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 14.7.2009 (Annexure P-10) and 27.8.2009 (Annexure P-11), vide which the Original Applications filed by the petitioners and which were remanded by this Court were dismissed. Mr.D.S.Patwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court vide order dated 27.3.2009, passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has been instructed to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to re-approach the Central Administrative Tribunal so as to enable him to lead evidence to establish the claim of the CWP No.14719 of 2009 -2- petitioner, subject to the condition that respondents have no objection to the instant prayer made on behalf of the petitioner; Learned counsel for the respondents state that she has no objection to the course of action sought to be adopted at the hands of the petitioner. In view of the above, in order to afford a fruitful opportunity to the petitioner to re-agitate his claim before the Central Administrative Tribunal after leading proper evidence, we consider it just and appropriate to set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 231.10.2006 (Annexure P-25) and remand the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal with liberty as sought. Disposed of accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before the Central Administrative Tribunal through their counsel on 24.7.2009.” In pursuance to the aforementioned order, the petitioners were given numerous opportunities by the Tribunal to place on record the documents by way of affidavit/leading evidence and exchange them with the respondent's counsel to enable the respondent to file rebuttal affidavit or to lead evidence. However, despite affording opportunities to the petitioners, no documents were filed nor any evidence was led by them. Counsel for the petitioners submits that only one opportunity was granted to the petitioners and on that date the judgement was reserved and therefore, they have been denied the effective opportunity to lead evidence or to submit documents and to argue their case on the basis of the CWP No.14719 of 2009 -3- documents. Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners were granted numerous opportunities to submit their documents by way of affidavit or leading any evidence which they had in their favour, but, despite that they did not avail of the opportunities granted. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed their Original Applications. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that as vital rights of the petitioners are involved, therefore, we intend to take a lenient view in the matter. Resultantly, we set aside the impugned orders (Annexure P-10) and (Annexure P-11) and remand the case back to the Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench on 20.4.2010. We grant the petitioners one date to file their documents or affidavits. This shall be done by the petitioners on or before 20.4.2010. The petitioners shall also be given one opportunity by the Tribunal to lead any evidence which they wish to. No further opportunity except from the one mentioned in the order shall be given to the petitioners. The Tribunal shall also give similar opportunities to the respondent, if required. The petitioners shall, however, pay costs of Rs.5000/- in each of the writ petitions, which shall be paid to the counsel for the respondent. Writ petitions are disposed of. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 23, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) Gulati JUDGE