CWP No. 9269 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9269 of 2011 Date of Decision: May 24, 2011 Union of India and others …Appellants Versus Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Central Govt. Counsel for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment dated 25.10.2010 (P-4) passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). A perusal of para 4 of the order would show that another similar matter has attained finality on the dismissal of the SLP (A-9). It was also agreed that the directions to the respondent to grant similar benefit to the original applicant- respondent be given as has been given in the order dated 05.02.2002 & 05.06.2002 passed by a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. CWP No. 9269 of 2011 -2- 2. It is well settled that the order, which is placed on record, cannot be challenged in appeal. In any case, the Tribunal has passed an order granting benefits to the original applicant- respondent which have been given to similar circumstanced employees when their matter was decided in Original Application No. 533-CH of 1998. Accordingly, they were also given allowance vide order 05.02.2002 and 05.06.2002 passed in the aforesaid original application. Therefore, no room is provided to interfere with the directions issued by the Tribunal. The appeal is wholly against the National Litigation Policy of the Union of India, which has been reported as (2010) 6 SCC J-17. The aforesaid policy has been completely overlooked by the petitioner. In paragraph VI, the issue of filing of appeal has been dealt with. In accordance with Item D, the following provision has been made:- “ VI. Filing of appeals (A) to (C) x x x x (D) In service matters, no appeal will be filed in cases where: (a) the matter pertains to an individual grievance without any major repercussion; (b) the matter pertains to a case of pension or retirement benefits without involving any principle and without setting any precedent or financial implications.” (emphasis added). 3. We hope and trust that the writ petitioner would keep in view CWP No. 9269 of 2011 -3- the aforesaid Litigation Policy and would not resort to filing appeal/ case in a mechanical manner. 4. Accordingly, the petition fails and the same is dismissed being devoid of merit (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE May 24, 2011 Atul