IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: August 23, 2011 1. CWP No. 14219-CAT of 2008 (O&M) Union of India and others …Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others …Respondents 2. CWP No. 7781-CAT of 2011 (O&M) Union of India and others …Petitioners Versus Naib Chand and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Central Govt. Counsel, for the petitioners (in CWP No. 14219-CAT of 2008) and for Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP No. 7781-CAT of 2011) Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate, for the respondent(s) 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR, J.J.J.J. 1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 14219-CAT of 2008 and 7781-CAT of 2011 filed by the Union of India and its officers under Article 226 of the Constitution against the orders dated 17.1.2008 and 23.7.2009 rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in OA No. 871/CH/2006 and OA No. 559/CH/2008 respectively, holding that the matter was covered in favour of the original applicant- respondents by virtue of the directions issued by a Division Bench CWP No. 14219 of 2008 (O&M) and CWP No. 7781 of 2011 (O&M) 2 of the Principal Bench, New Delhi, in the case of Vijender Singh and Vijender Singh and Vijender Singh and Vijender Singh and others others others others v. v. v. v. Union of India and others Union of India and others Union of India and others Union of India and others (O.A. No. 2710 of 2003, decided (O.A. No. 2710 of 2003, decided (O.A. No. 2710 of 2003, decided (O.A. No. 2710 of 2003, decided on 13.5.2004) on 13.5.2004) on 13.5.2004) on 13.5.2004). In that case the benefit has been given by quashing the offending order refusing to grant the original applicants deemed date of promotion who have been working on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil and Electrical). As a sequel to the quashing of offending orders, the seniority list was also quashed. Accordingly, the direction was issued to the petitioners to grant the benefit of notional seniority to the original applicants from the date when the vacancies arose. 2. It is appropriate to mention that the original applicant- respondents had approached the Tribunal with the grievance that the petitioners did not hold any Limited Department Competitive Examination in respect of the vacancies pertaining to various years from 1994 to 1999. The examination was held only in the year 1999. They had qualified the exam and were given promotion as Assistant Engineer vide different office orders. Their further grievance was that they could not be deprived of their right of promotion against the quota post of Limited Department Competitive Examination. 3. In order to apprise the Court that the view taken by the Tribunal has not been accepted, the petitioners filed an application (C.M. No. 2888 of 2011 in CWP No. 14219 of 2008) with a prayer for disposal of the writ petition. Alongwith the application the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Union of India and others Union of India and others Union of India and others Union of India and others v. v. v. v. Vijender Singh and others Vijender Singh and others Vijender Singh and others Vijender Singh and others (W.P. (C) No. 1188 (W.P. (C) No. 1188 (W.P. (C) No. 1188 (W.P. (C) No. 1188-90/2005, decided on 29.11.2010 90/2005, decided on 29.11.2010 90/2005, decided on 29.11.2010 90/2005, decided on 29.11.2010) has also been attached (CM-I). CWP No. 14219 of 2008 (O&M) and CWP No. 7781 of 2011 (O&M) 3 4. Notice of the application was issued to the learned counsel for the non-applicant-respondents, who agreed that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be disposed of and no further relief was required to be extended to the original applicant- respondents. 5. As a sequel to the above discussion, we dispose of the writ petition in the same terms as has been done by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India and others Union of India and others Union of India and others Union of India and others v. v. v. v. Vijender Singh and Vijender Singh and Vijender Singh and Vijender Singh and others others others others (W.P. (C) No. 1188 (W.P. (C) No. 1188 (W.P. (C) No. 1188 (W.P. (C) No. 1188-90/2005, decided on 29.11.2010 90/2005, decided on 29.11.2010 90/2005, decided on 29.11.2010 90/2005, decided on 29.11.2010), ), ), ), in view of the agreement of the parties. 6. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected petition. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) August 23 August 23 August 23 August 23, , , , 2011 2011 2011 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor