CWP No. 12373 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.12373 of 2011 Date of decision 18 .7 .2011 Union of India and others ..Petitioners Versus . Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandiarh and another .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Ms. Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioners 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Union of India and its officers is directed against judgement dated 6.9.2010 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') holding that the original applicant - respondent may be given promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner from the date his immediate juniors were promoted with the benefit of notional fixation from the due date and refixation of his pension with payment of balance arrears of pension. It has come on record that the persons junior to the Original Applicant- respondent have been promoted on 2.7.1997 (A.16) whereas he was promoted on 1.10.2002 which is after his date of retirement. It is appropriate to mention that he has retired on 30.9.2002 from the post of Superintendent Grade B. However no relief was granted to him of the order dated 4.2.2002 passed in OA NO. 7 CH 1996 which was allowed by the CWP No. 12373 of 2011 2 Tribunal. In the aforesaid OA the order passed by the writ petitioner- UOI on 6.10.1995 was set aside. The seniority of the original applicant - respondent was revised and date of his appointment as Superintendent Grade B was changed to 30.11.1984 from 1.5.1989 without affording any opportunity to him. The Tribunal while quashing order dated 6.10.1995 granted permission to the appellants to issue fresh orders after complying with the principles of natural justice, if so advised. However, the appellant did not re-open the issue. The reason was that the matter had attained finality in the earlier round of litigation as would be evident from the succeeding para. However, after the retirement of the original applicant the petitioner- UOI issued an order on 1.10.2002 promoting him as Assistant Commissioner. Before the Tribunal, the Original Applicant- respondent claimed that promotion order dated 1.10.2002 had no meaning and could not be given effect to as he had already retired from service w.e.f. 30.9.2002. He has also claimed that his juniors had been promoted earlier and he should ought to have been given promotion from the date his juniors like S/Shri R.K.Vohra and D.R.Arora who were promoted on the post of Assistant Commissioner w.e.f. 2.7.1997. 2. At this stage, it is also appropriate to point out that the Tribunal had passed orders on 23.8.1994 in OA No. 180 CH of 1988 which was implemented by the appellant. In pursuance of the directions, the Original Applicant- respondent was promoted as Superintendent Grade B w.e.f. 30.11.1984 vide order dated 3.4.1995 and was confirmed as such on 31.8.1995. Even the Special Leave Petition No. 2745 of 1995 preferred by the appellant against the above order was dismissed on 11.7.1995. The matter thus attained finality on the basis of judicial pronouncement and the CWP No. 12373 of 2011 3 appellants could not have re-opened the case. Accordingly the date of promotion of the Original Applicant- respondent as Superintendent Grade 'B' could not have been altered and the Tribunal has rightly quashed order dated 29.11.2007 (A.1). 3. On the basis of the aforesaid factual position, the Original Applicant- respondent has claimed consideration and promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner w.e.f. 2.7.1997 when persons junior to him were promoted. Accordingly, directions have been issued by the Tribunal to consider his case from the date persons juniors to him have been promoted. 4. Having heard the learned counsel, we find no ground to interfere in the directions issued by the Tribunal because the fruit of litigation which has attained finality upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court could not be snatched by changing his date of promotion as Superintendent Grade B and then depriving him further promotion on the post of Assistant Commissioner with effect the date persons junior to him have been considered and promoted. The writ petition is wholly frivolous and is against the principles of National Litigation Policy reported as (2010) 6 SCC J 17. The writ petition does not warrant admission and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 18.7.2011 Judge okg