CWP No. 2177 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 2177 CAT of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 10 .5.2010 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another ... Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. VK Sharma,Advocate for the applicant- respondent no.2. Mr. IS Sidhu, Advocate3 for the non applicant-petitioners 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research has challenged judgement dated 16.8.2007 (P.4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in OA No.291 Pb. 2006. The Tribunal after following the view taken in its earlier order dated 31.8.2006 passed in OA No. 706 Pb. 2005 ( Shalo Ram v. Union of India and others) has ordered medical reimbursement for treatment of his wife by the applicant- respondent no.2, Balwant Singh. It is appropriate to notice that judgement of the Tribunal in Shalo Ram's case (supra) was upheld in CWP No. 981 CAT of 2006 vide order dated 20.1.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Another Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 11494 of 2007 (Darshan Singh Rai v. Union of India and others) decided on 13.3.2008 had also taken similar view by upholding the claim of the employee working in Border Security Force. CWP No. 2177 of 2010 2 The writ petition was adjourned sine die in order the await the decision of Special Leave Petition filed in Shalo Ram's case (supra). Accordingly an application has been filed by Balwant Singh -original applicant bringing on record the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 9.4.2009 showing that the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgement of this Court in Shalo Ram's case (supra) has been dismissed. Notice of the application was issued and Mr. I.S.Sidhu, counsel for the non applicant- petitioner has put in appearance. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that the matter is fully covered by the judgement of this Court in Shalo Ram's case (supra) which has upheld the opinion expressed by the Tribunal. Therefore the respondent- original applicant is entitled to all the benefits of medical reimbursement as have been released in Shalo Ram's case (supra). Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 10.5.2010 Judge okg