IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 5581 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 28, 2010 Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration …Petitioner Versus Mrs. Shashi Bala and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranjiwan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against order dated 28.11.2007 (P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in OA No. 367/CH/2005. 2. The applicant-respondent No. 1 has been working as SS Mistress with the Chandigarh Administration-petitioner. She has claimed Dearness Allowance in addition to the amount fixed as consolidated salary at the rate it is released to other employees. It is pertinent to notice that the applicant-respondent No. 1 has approached the Tribunal basically with three prayers, which are as follows:- CWP No. 5581 of 2008 “(i) Respondents be directed to rectify the seniority number of the applicant as mentioned in the seniority list of contract teachers (SS Mistress Cadre)-TGTs issued vide Memo No. DEO-UT-Misc-2004/7480 dated 29.3.2004 (annexure A-2) keeping in view the date of joining of the applicant. (ii) Respondents be directed to grant of minimum of the pay scale to the applicant as is admissible to her regular counter part along with its arrears etc. in the spirit of the directions of this Hon’ble Court rendered on OA No. 428/CH/2003 (Sonika Kohli vs. UOI) on 27.08.2003. (iii) Respondents be further restrained from terminating the services of the applicant during the pendency of the instant application.” 3. The Tribunal has disposed of the Original Application holding that the first two reliefs claimed by the applicant-respondent No. 1 stand already granted. The apparent basis of the aforesaid observation was the detailed reply filed on 6.7.2006. Along with the reply a copy of the order dated 24.7.2002 was also added whereby the Chandigarh Administration-petitioner is stated to have taken a decision to grant minimum of pay scale puls Dearness Allowance to the persons appointed on wholly time contract basis and the consolidated amount so determined was not to be raised thereafter during the currency of period of contract. However, in para 4 the Tribunal has made a reference to some judgment delivered by it without specifying the same. It also noticed that on the basis of the aforesaid judgment, the Chandigarh 2 CWP No. 5581 of 2008 Administration-petitioner has issued circular which imply that the Chandigarh Administration-petitioner was to allow Dearness Allowance at the rate admissible to its employees from time to time instead of keeping the consolidated amount fixed at the time of original appointment. 4. Mrs. Lisa Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that according to the written statement consolidated salary of Rs. 8,000/- is inclusive of Dearness Allowance and no further Dearness Allowance is to be added as and when the same is released by the Government and is paid to the regular employees. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of its order has erroneously stated that the relief of adding the element of Dearness Allowance as paid to the regular employees stood granted to the applicant-respondent No. 1. She maintained that neither any such relief was granted nor anything has been said in the written statement. 5. Mr. Ranjiwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant- respondent No. 1, however, has not been able to point out from the record that any relief of payment of Dearness Allowance as released to the regular employees of the Chandigarh Administration-petitioner, has ever been granted to the persons working on whole time contract basis. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no question of law for determination of this Court would arise. If there is any error on facts, inasmuch as, the Tribunal has accepted that the Chandigarh Administration-petitioner has issued circular incorporating the relief claimed by the applicant-respondent No. 1, then the proper remedy for the Chandigarh Administration-petitioner is to approach the Tribunal for rectification of such an error. It would not be 3 CWP No. 5581 of 2008 proper for us to rectify that error as the Tribunal is taken to be the final Court of facts. 7. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Chandigarh Administration-petitioner to move an appropriate application for correction of mistake in the impugned order or file a review application in accordance with law. If the period of limitation has expired then the same shall not be insisted upon, if such an application is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If no application is filed within 30 days then the impugned order shall be deemed to have attained finality. 8. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY TEWARI) January 28, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4