Full Judgment
CWP No.5366-CAT of 2003 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5366-CAT of 2003 Date of Decision: 13.02.2014 Union of India and others ..Petitioners Versus Rajesh Kumar and another ..Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI Present:Mr.I.S.Sidhu, Advocate and Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners-UOI.
Mr.Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
***** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) Learned counsel for both the parties fairly concedes that they are not in contact with their respective clients in the near past nor would they know what has been recent development, as this matter is coming up after more than a decade.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an issue about the Central Administrative Tribunal having jurisdiction qua the subject matter, as it was not one of the notified institution on that date and submit that the issue is now covered by the judgment of Bombay High Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v.
A.R.Patil and otheRs.2002(3) ATJ1in favour of the petitioneRs.He, however, concedes that this plea was not taken before the Central Administrative Tribunal and learned counsel for respondent No.1/original petitioner submits Rajan Kumar 2014.02.17 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5366-CAT of 2003 [2].that the Central Administrative Tribunal has dealt with this aspect at the threshold itself by observing that the cause of action was prior to the absorption of respondent No.1 into the BSNL.
Be that as it may, the impugned order as well as the stand of the respondent shows that the same is predicated on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in L.M.Medar v.
Union of India, 2001 (1) ATJ.It is not clear whether this judgment was finally accepted by the petitioners or was assailed any further.
Whatever be the final view in this behalf, would, in our view, has to be applied uniformly qua the employees of the petitioner.
Being a Government enterprise, it cannot discriminate amongst the employees if a particular principle has been accepted.
In view of the aforesaid position, the present writ petition is disposed of on agreed terms that whatever be the fate of the judicial view in L.M.Medar's case (supra) would be applied to the case of respondent No.1, insofar as it is so applicable.
The petition, accordingly stands disposed.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE February 13, 2014 Rajan