LAWS(P&H)-2017-12-8

CHANDIGARH TRANSPORT Vs. P.O.&ANR

Decided On December 22, 2017
Chandigarh Transport Appellant
V/S
P.O.AndAnr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three cases deal with the same issues and are consequently being decided by this judgment. Facts are taken from CWP No.16224 of 2016.

(2.) This is an application for placing on record counter affidavit alongwith Annexure & exemption from filing certified/typed copy of Annexure R-6/1 to R-6/7. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed and abovesaid documents are taken on record. Main case

(3.) In this petition the petitioner has challenged the grant of certain benefits to the private respondents. The private respondents were all ex-servicemen who had sought that their educational qualification of diploma plus 10 years experience entitled them to be considered as degree holders. At that time this was claimed on the basis of what was stated to be a notification dated 26.5.1977 issued by Government of India. In an unrelated case the Central Administrative Tribunal had declared that notification to be fictitious and it is on this ground that this petition is partly laid. During the pendency of this petition affidavit dated 21.11.2017 of the Secretary to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India has been placed on record wherein he has unequivocally stated that no such notification was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development which was the concerned Ministry or in fact any other department. Today, it has been agreed before me that in fact no notification was ever issued. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents has argued that this fact by itself could not be solely determinative because the fact of the matter is that various office memoranda were issued wherein this decision was taken and now for the past more than 45 years this benefit has been granted to ex-servicemen across the board and there may be hundreds, if not thousands of such persons who have been given this benefit and in these circumstances to withdraw it from the private respondents at this stage would be extremely unfair.