PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No. 3484-CAT of 2008; CWP No. 3560 of 2008, CWP No.5202 of 2008. CWP No.4289 of 2008; CWP No. 4271 of 2008. CWP No.3603 of 2008. and CWP No. 4273 of 2008. *** Union Territory, Chandigarh andors. Vs. Harbans Singh and another. *** Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover. *** Present: Shri Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for U.T.Chandigarh. Shri A.L.Vohra, Advocate, for respondent No.1. *** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) In U.T Pensioners Welfare Association and others Verus Chandigarh Administration, the Central Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 18.10.2005 held the employees of U.T. Chandigarh to be entitled to Liberalized Pensionary benefits in terms of recommendations made in the Third Pay Commission Report. The said order was challenged by the U.T. Administration in CWP No. 3349-CAT of 2006 before this Court which petition was eventually dismissed by a Division Bench by its order dated 6.01.2009 (Chandigarh Administration Vs. U.T. Pensioners Welfare Association and others 2009(1) SCT 526). The present batch of seven petitions raise identical questions as were raised in the writ petition mentioned above. These petitions have also been filed against similar but different orders made by the Central Administrative Tribunal relying upon the ratio of its decision in case of U.T. Pensioners Welfare Association supra. Learned counsel for the respondents therefore argued and in our opinion rightly so that the issues raised in the petitions are concluded by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3349-CAT of 2006 referred to earlier. This position is made manifest by the fact that learned counsel for the petitioners did not urge any further point beyond what has been already dealt with by this Court in the judgment -2- mentioned earlier. As a matter of fact these petitions were also directed to be heard along with writ petition No. 17126 of 2006 but because of some over sight these writ petitions were not listed for hearing on the date writ petition 17126 of 2006 was heard and disposed of along with CWP No. 3349 of 2006. In the circumstances therefore and on a parity of reasoning we dismiss these writ petitions also leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Mahesh Grover) October 27, 2009 Judge Malik