IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 8532-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision: May 11, 2010 Union of India and others ..Petitioners Versus Bhag Chand and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Namit Kumar, 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 Union of India has filed the instant petition challenging order dated 18.12.2009, passed in OA No. 69-CH-2008 (P-5), by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). Shri Bhag Chand-respondent No. 1 had claimed parity for grant of Time Bound One Promotion Scheme (TBOP) and Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) on the basic ground that person junior to him has been given those benefits, namely, Shri Krishan Kumar. It is admitted as a fact that the name of Shri Krishan Kumar in the seniority list of Lower Division Clerks figures at Sr. No. 24 and that of respondent No. 1 at Sr. No. 20. The claim of Shri Krishan Kumar was allowed by the Tribunal and likewise the claims of some other persons were also allowed. The Tribunal, following the earlier precedent has allowed the Original Application filed by respondent No. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners we do not find any CWP No. 8532-CAT of 2010 legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal because once person junior to the petitioner has been given the benefit of TBOP and BCR Scheme then there was no reason to deny the same benefits to respondent No. 1. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and others v. Ram Sarup Ganda and others (Civil Appeal No. 3250 of 2006, decided on 2.8.2006). There is no merit in the instant petition warranting admission. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 11, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2