ORDER
Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. In nutshell, the issue involved in the present OA is identical in law with OA-2492/2005, which has been allowed by us today itself, holding the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in OA-463/PB/2002 decided on 19.12.2002 in S.C. Panda v. Union of India and Ors. and the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP-14378/2003 dated 11.9.2003 would hold the field.
3. The main objection raised by the respondents in this OA is whether the relief claimed by the applicants for in situ benefit as Under Secretary is in limitation as well as the persons having different eligibility at different dates be combined together in one application?
4. We have carefully considered the objections raised by the learned Counsel for respondents as also considered the case on merits. In our considered view, when a substantive right of a person on a meritorious claim is before us, the technical objection of limitation would not impede in any manner the administration of justice. In such view of the matter, objection raised is overruled.
5. Insofar as the objection of joining together by the applicants is concerned, the common relief prayed is for grant of in situ. Maybe the applicants have acquired the eligibility but it is before the cut-off date, as held by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
6. In such view of the matter, as those, who are falling before the cut-off date, referred to above, would have no rightful claim, yet the other applicants if prefer a representation to the respondents now, the same shall be considered in its right perspective and also in accordance with the dicta laid down in OA-2492/2005 (supra). The consequences would follow akin to the directions given in OA-2492/2005, which would be settled within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. OA is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.