Director School Education, Chandigarh v. Chandigarh & Ors.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishav Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4 (through video conferencing). *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J.(Oral)

Present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 19.12.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1- Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been granted central pay-scale.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner had raised a plea before the Tribunal that respondents are not entitled for the benefit as they never applied for the same at any given point of time which has not been considered and further that the relief claimed was after a considerable delay keeping in view Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 CWP-3450-2020 2 and further the benefit granted in “Kesar Singh and others Vs. Union of India” was personal to them and cannot be made applicable upon the similarly situated claimants.

On being asked to point out whether such plea was taken at the time of hearing before the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to support the said contention specially that the order was dictated in the open Court.

Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to file a review before the Tribunal.

Ordered accordingly. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE

22.04.2026 vanita Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether Reportable : Yes No