IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 8518-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision: May 11, 2010 Dr. Pawan Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. D.R. Bansal, 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 petitioners were paid over payment in consideration of Leave Travel Concession (LTC). It was later on discovered that they were not entitled to travel by air and the advance made was sought to be recovered. The notice issued to them was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 128-HR-09, which has been decided on 17.3.2010 (P-4). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners we are of the considered view that the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting admission of the writ petition. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the principles emerging from the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) RSJ 139, would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The writ petition is devoid of merit and does not deserve admission. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 11, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2