Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "the Tribunal") on 10.07.2013 whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 4128 of 1994 titled as Dr. S.K. Marwaha v. Union of India and others', transferred from this Court to the Tribunal was disposed of. In the aforesaid writ petition, this Court has framed following 4 issues as said to be arising for consideration on 02.12.1998. The issues read as under: - (1) Why benefit under the Scheme which was introduced on 12/12.3.1987 be not extended to those employees who were recruited between 1.1.1977 and 31.12.1984? (2) Whey a direction be not given to frame suitable Scheme providing for promotional avenues for the employees falling in group B, C and D on continuous basis on the basis of recommendations of the Dhar Committee? (3) Why the decisions which were arrived at between the Joint Action Committee and the P.G.I. with the intervention of High Powered Committee have not been implemented on date and why a direction to implement the same so far? (4) Why a High Powered Committee be not constituted on permanent basis to look into the grievances of the employees of the P.G.I. from time to time as Grievances Redressal Agency?
(2.) THIS Court in the aforesaid writ petition passed an order on 14.01.2010 subsequent to the issuance of a notification by the Central Government notifying the Post -graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for short 'PGI') as one of the authority notified to be governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. After the aforesaid notification, an argument was raised before this Court that the issues raised in the writ petition relate to service conditions and benefits claimed by the employees of PGI which would now fell within the ambit of Central Administrative Tribunal. It is argued that other matter which needs redressal as a Public Interest Litigation would still survive such as the continuation of a permanent machinery for redressal of grievance of the staff of the PGI. In response to such an argument, learned counsel for the PGI agreed that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon issues relating to service condition of employees. In pursuance of the said statement, issues No. 1 and 2 were transferred for decision to the Tribunal whereas in respect of issue No. 3 and 4 it was observed that the aforesaid writ petition may continue as a Public Interest Litigation or concerned parties may file fresh writ petition. Thereafter, on 24.02.2010 a statement was made that those two issues (Question No. 3 & 4) are subject matter of CWP No. 3431 of 2010 CWP No. 5932 of 2014 titled as 'PGI Medical Technologists Association v. Union of India and others'. As a consequence said CWP No. 4128 of 1994 was disposed of along with other miscellaneous applications.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner against the order of the Tribunal is on the procedural aspects such as that the writ petition was filed by Dr. S.K. Marwaha and the Joint Action Committee and not by PGI Medical Technologists Association (for short 'Association') and Transfer Petition has been allowed on behalf of such Association which has not even sought impleadment as a party in such proceedings.;