114 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS GOVERDHAN LAL AND OTHERS CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. 19.12.2025 (Annexure P Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby Original Application No. judgment dated 25.09.2025 passed in Original Application No. 063/985/2023. 2. 25.09.2025 passed in Original Application No. 063/985/2023, on the which Original Application No. distinguishing feature which has not been noticed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that, though the impugned order passed in Original Application No. 2022 records that there is no distinguishing feature between Original Application No. 63/816 of 2022 and Original Application No. 063/985/2023 hence, the petitioners seek to point out that the two cases are, in fact, distinguishable on the relevant aspect. 3. petitioners submits that the present petition may kindly be disposed of as not pressed any further, with liberty to the petitioners to avail of the appropriate remedy of filing a rev 4. 02-09-2026 Sapna Goyal NOTE: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.26201 of 2026 Date of Decision : UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VERSUS GOVERDHAN LAL AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate for the petitioners HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby Original Application No. 63/816 of 2022 has been allowed on the basis of the judgment dated 25.09.2025 passed in Original Application No. 063/985/2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment dated 25.09.2025 passed in Original Application No. 063/985/2023, on the which Original Application No. 63/816 of 2022 has been allowed, has a distinguishing feature which has not been noticed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that, though the impugned order passed in Original Application No. 2022 records that there is no distinguishing feature between Original Application 816 of 2022 and Original Application No. 063/985/2023 hence, the petitioners seek to point out that the two cases are, in fact, distinguishable on the aspect. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition may kindly be disposed of as not pressed any further, with liberty to the petitioners to avail of the appropriate remedy of filing a review petition before the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) 2026 Sapna Goyal NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable: NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.26201 of 2026 Date of Decision : 02.09.2026 ........Petitioners VERSUS ........Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV Rohit Verma, Advocate for the petitioners In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated 1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby 2022 has been allowed on the basis of the judgment dated 25.09.2025 passed in Original Application No. 063/985/2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment dated 25.09.2025 passed in Original Application No. 063/985/2023, on the basis of 816 of 2022 has been allowed, has a distinguishing feature which has not been noticed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that, though the impugned order passed in Original Application No. 63/816 of 2022 records that there is no distinguishing feature between Original Application 816 of 2022 and Original Application No. 063/985/2023 hence, the petitioners seek to point out that the two cases are, in fact, distinguishable on the In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition may kindly be disposed of as not pressed any further, with liberty to the petitioners to avail of the appropriate iew petition before the Tribunal. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (MINDERJEET YADAV) JUDGE / reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated 1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby 2022 has been allowed on the basis of the Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment dated asis of 816 of 2022 has been allowed, has a distinguishing feature which has not been noticed by the Tribunal. It is submitted 816 of 2022 records that there is no distinguishing feature between Original Application 816 of 2022 and Original Application No. 063/985/2023 hence, the petitioners seek to point out that the two cases are, in fact, distinguishable on the In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition may kindly be disposed of as not pressed any further, with liberty to the petitioners to avail of the appropriate SAPNA GOYAL 2026.09.03 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document