CWP-20608-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 111 CWP-20608-2026 Date of decision: 10.07.2026 Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ...Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate/ Senior Standing Counsel, with Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate/Additional Standing Counsel, for U. T. Chandigarh. Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karanvir Kathuria, Central Government Counsel for Union of India. Mr. Nitin Bhasin, Advocate, with Ms. Bharti Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 06.04.2026 (Anneuxre P-20) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OA No.60/1197/2025 titled as Pankaj Kumar Gautam Vs. Engineering Department, U. T. Chandigarh, whereby, the Tribunal has allowed the application for amendment and passed substantive directions despite having no jurisdiction for the same. Learned Senior Standing counsel appearing on behalf of Chandigarh Administration submits that though only an amendment has been allowed to the original application by the Tribunal but direction has already been given to the Tribunal in an earlier round of litigation that jurisdiction of the ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20608-2026 2 Tribunal need to be adjudicated qua the relief sought, hence, the direction be given to the Tribunal to decide the said issue first and in case jurisdiction is there then only, the findings on the merits should be given, even if both are to be decided, after hearing the arguments on the maintainability as well as on merits. On advance notice, learned counsel for the respondents appears raises no objection qua the said arguments. The present writ petition is disposed of that the amendment which has been allowed by the Tribunal needs no interference at the hands of this Court, but after the amendment, in case an argument/objection is taken by the Chandigarh Administration qua the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or the admissibility of the original application, the same be decided first before passing the decision on merits even if, the arguments on admissibility and the merit are heard together. It may be noticed that the decision on merits be given only in case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that jurisdiction existed with the Tribunal to pass such decision. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 10, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) anil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document