IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1340 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION :4th February, 2010 Union of India and others …Petitioners Vs. Smt.Shakuntla Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present : Mr.R.K.Chugh, 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. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity the tribunal) ( dated 12.02.2009 passed in O.A. No.36/HR/2008 is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondent-applicant had earlier approached the tribunal by filing O.A. No.1196/HR/2002 which was decided on 28.07.2003 and the petitioner was directed to take concrete decision on the pending representation of the applicant-respondent within a period of four months from the date of production of the said order communicated to them. The applicant-respondents were given liberty to file fresh O.A. in case such a necessity was felt. The basic dispute raised by the applicant-respondent was concerning their re-designation of, and pay scale for, the post held by them. In pursuance of directions issued by the tribunal a letter dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure P-4) was sent to the applicant-respondents disclosing that proposal has been considered in consultation with Ministry of finance and its implementation would be subject to fresh work study report. The unit Civil Writ Petition No.1340 of 2010 -2- of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare conducted work study vide letter dated 10.05.2007 and made recommendation with regard to re- designation of, and pay scale for, the post held by the applicant- respondents. It was in the aforesaid context that the applicant- respondents once again approached the tribunal and the tribunal vide impugned order has issued the following innocuous directions :- “ The position now is that a concrete proposal has emerged, which is awaiting implementation, pending clearance by the Ministry of Health (IFD) and the nodal Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). We further take note of the fact that the O.A., earlier filed by the applicants, was neither adjudicated upon on merits as the issue involved was found to be a policy matter, nor, for that reason, we need to go into the merits of the present case. As such, it is not possible for this Tribunal to give directions in the manner prayed for by the applicants in this O.A. We, however, consider it appropriate to dispose of the present O.A. with a direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to complete the process undertaken with regard to re- designation of the posts held by the applicants and the scales thereof and to implement the report in this regard in a time-bound frame of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We order accordingly and this O.A. stands disposed of.” We have heard learned counsel for the Union of India and find that no legal infirmity is discernible from the direction issued by the tribunal. The directions are innocuous in the sense that if the recommendations have been received with regard to re-designation of post held by the applicant-respondents and their pay scale then the petitioners are required to take a decision to implement them. We further find that the order was passed on 12.03.2009 and the Civil Writ Petition No.1340 of 2010 -3- decision was required to be taken within a period of three months. The order of the tribunal should have been implemented by the time the instant petition was filed in December 2009. There is thus no ground to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) February 04, 2010 JUDGE p.singh