CWP No.21654 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.21654 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.11.2011 Chandigarh Administration & others ... Petitioners versus Parminder Kaur & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present : Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate with Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Permod Kohli, J.(Oral) The orders dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) and 04.11.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal'), Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh have been challenged in the present writ petition. Vide order dated 21.10.2011, following interim directions ere issued: “Present : None for the applicants. 1. Notice. 2. Notice re: stay as well. 3. Sh. Amit Sharma, Standing Counsel for Chandigarh Administration accepts notice on behalf of respondents. He seeks time to have instructions/file pleadings. 4. In the meantime, the impugned verbal termination orders shall stand stayed. 5. List on 04.11.2011. (Khushi Ram) (Justice S.D.Anand) Member (A) Member (J)” CWP No.21654 of 2011 (O&M) -2- This order was passed ex parte. The petitioners appeared before the Tribunal on 04.11.2011 and sought time to file reply. While allowing the petitioners time till 24.11.2011, the Tribunal issue further following interim directions: “Present: Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, vice Sh. S.K.Guevera, counsel for the applicants. Sh. Sandeep Siwatch, vice Sh. Amit Sharma, counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that they had submitted their joining report to the Director, Public Instructions (School), Chandigarh Administration on 27.10.2011; however, the respondents have not allowed them to perform their duties. He has placed on record copy of joining report. The respondents are hereby directed to strictly comply with the orders passed by this Court on 21.10.2011 by the next date of hearing. List this case on 24.11.2011. Copy Dasti. (Promila Issar) (Shyama Dogra) Member (A) Member (J)” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners in original application were relieved on 31.03.2011 and approached the Tribunal only on 20.10.2011 and by misrepresentation they obtained the interim order seeking stay of their termination. It is further contended that without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to present their case by filing reply and even without affording an adequate opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal has further directed to implement the interim directions by allowing the petitioners in OA to join the service whereas they were out of job for a period of more than 6 months before approaching the Tribunal. Both the impugned orders are interim orders. It is not CWP No.21654 of 2011 (O&M) -3- deemed appropriate to interfere in these orders at this stage, however, keeping in view the averments made in this petition, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: Petitioners shall file their reply to the original application within a period of 10 days. The Tribunal shall hear the parties on the question of interim relief and pass final order within a period of one month thereafter. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be allowed to the parties to argue the matter on the interim orders. The interim orders shall remain in abeyance till the Tribunal consider and decide the matter on the interim orders. (Permod Kohli) Judge November 22, 2011 (Tejinder Singh Dhindsa) sonia Judge