Union Of India And Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 3 September, 2008

CWP No.15619 of 2008                                       1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                              *****
                              CWP No.15619 of 2008
                              Date of decision : September 3, 2008

                              *****

Union of India and others
                                                    ............Petitioners

Versus


Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh & others              ...........Respondents


                              *****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH


                              *****

Present:      Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.


                              *****

M.M KUMAR, J.

The instant petition is directed against the order dated

25.2.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as `the

Tribunal’). The Tribunal has issued innocuous direction to the

petitioners to get this matter examined from the Ministry of finance

for the grant of benefit to the applicant-respondents from the year

2003 onwards. There case is required to be considered at the level

of Ministry of Finance, Department of Personnel and Training. It is

appropriate to mention that the applicant-respondents have been
CWP No.15619 of 2008 2

clamouring for grant of leave encashment for a period of 300 days

which has been granted w.e.f 7.11.2006 but, their prayer is to grant

them the benefit from 21.4.2003. The order is required to be

complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt

of a copy of the order. The period of three months has admittedly

expired. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the extension of one month period obtained by the

petitioner is also to expire in a day or two.

In view of the above, taking into account the totality of the

circumstances, we are not persuaded to interfere in the direction

issued by the Tribunal especially when the period for consideration

has already expired and the extension for consideration of the case

have been granted which is also to expire in a day or two.

Disposed of accordingly.

                                            ( M.M KUMAR )
                                                JUDGE




September 3, 2008                          ( JORA SINGH )
ritu                                           JUDGE