111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21490-2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 17.07.2026 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER ......PETITIONERS Vs. ROOP SINGH AND ANOTHER .........RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Saurabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, with Mr. Himanshu Gautam, Advocate, for the appellants-Union of India. ***** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(ORAL) 1. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners -Union of India submits that the expenditure alleged to have been incurred is also disputed and, therefore, the question of reimbursement would arise only if it is established that such expenditure was actually incurred. 1.1 It is further submitted that all the relevant facts/instructions regarding the entitlement of the respondents to reimbursement could not be brought to the notice of the Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the CAT'). Hence, it is prayed that the present writ petition be disposed of as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioners to file a review petition before the CAT. 2. Ordered accordingly. 3. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE JULY 17, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No NITIN 2026.07.18 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document