© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Journalism of Courage
Premium
HC directs CAT to decide service dispute in three months
Status quo order kept in abeyance; parties told to complete pleadings within four weeks
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the CAT Chandigarh Bench to decide the pending service dispute within three months. (File Photo)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had directed the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, to decide within three months a pending service dispute over whether an employee is to be treated as part of the Chandigarh Administration or an Electricity Distribution Company.
Disposing of a writ petition filed by the Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, a Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri said the Tribunal should finally adjudicate the original application within three months from the next date of hearing.
The court was hearing a challenge to the Tribunal’s interim order dated January 29, 2026, in OA No. 1197 of 2025, by which status quo had been directed to be maintained till final adjudication of the employee’s plea regarding his service status.
At the outset, counsel for the parties agreed that a direction to the Tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously within a fixed time frame would suffice. Senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the interim status quo order would not be pressed if such a direction was issued.
Taking note of the consensus, the Bench directed both sides to complete pleadings within four weeks and cooperate with the Tribunal without seeking unnecessary adjournments so that the dispute could be resolved expeditiously.
During the hearing, senior counsel for the respondents requested that the issue not be precipitated till the Tribunal’s final decision. The counsel for the company, however, submitted that no order causing prejudice to the respondents had been brought to the court’s notice.
.The Bench observed that if any order passed by any authority during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal caused prejudice, the aggrieved party would be at liberty to seek an appropriate remedy before the Tribunal.
Story continues below this ad
In view of the arrangement between the parties, the court ordered that the Tribunal’s January 29 status quo direction would remain in abeyance till the original application is decided.
The Bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute, including the maintainability of the original application, and that all issues would be decided by the Tribunal on the basis of the record.
With these directions, the writ petition and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
- 05
Live Blog