IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 4, 2011 1. C.W.P. No. 42 of 2011 Union of India and others …Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and another …Respondents 2. C.W.P. No. 77 of 2011 Union of India and others …Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, 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. 1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 42 and 77 of 2011, which have been filed by the Union of India and its officers under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging common order dated 9.9.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal has placed reliance on its earlier order dated 30.05.2007 rendered in the case of Bhag Singh v. Union of India (OA No. 223/CH/06). 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the issue raised in these petitions is no longer res integra. C.W.P. Nos. 42 & 77 - CAT of 2011 Against similar orders passed by the Tribunal a number of petitions have already been filed by the Union of India and its officers, which have been dismissed by this Court like in the cases of Union of India and others v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others (Civil Writ Petition No. 7274- CAT of 2002, decided on 9.5.2002); Commander Works Engineer, Headquarters, Ambala Cantt. v. Sukhdev Singh and others (CWP No. 19802-CAT of 2006, decided on 17.04.2009); Union of India and others v. Baldev Singh and others (CWP No. 18963-CAT of 2003, decided on 17.04.2009); and Union of India and others v. Joginder Singh and another (CWP No. 21609 of 2010, decided on 6.12.2010). There is no distinguishing feature pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners between the matters already decided and the cases in hand. 3. We find no merit in these petitions warranting admission and accordingly the same are dismissed. 4. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 4, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor 2