Boasting of zero pending cases in its kitty, Chandigarh’s Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) becomes first of its kinds to ensure such great degrees of efficiency. Ensuring no pendency prior to the year 2015, Central Administrative Tribunal now only has cases post 2015 to cater to which are amounting to around 1100 approximately. States like Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir along with the Union Territory Chandigarh fall under the category of the Chandigarh bench which caters to all these without any discrimination.
How did they Achieve the Title ?
Chairman of the Chandigarh Bench, justice MS Sullar proudly boasts of the status this bench has attained and given all the credits to the criticism. As per what he says, “All the criticism that the judiciary faces over the increasing pendency was a major motivating factor.” Turning the obstacle into opportunities, justice Sullar has surely won hearts of many through this commendable achievement attained by the bench during his tenure.
Reasons cited for the achievement
- Messages sent to advocates
- Personal communication by bar members
- Prioritisation of old cases
- Decision by judges that cases would not be adjourned unnecessarily
- Teamwork and Hardwork
- Criticism of Judicial system
Fruitful Outcomes of the move
The move had been taken so seriously that it jumped onto proving the fact that “Action Speaks Louder than the Words.” Fetching leaps and bounds of criticism, the judicial system stood strong in tough times and delivered much more than it was expected. Some of the outcomes that are worth mentioning include:
- Only 1100 unsettled cases remain post-2015
- Bench had already decided on two cases from 2002 and 2003
- Over 4100 cases settled
- Against 4000-odd new cases filed in 2015 and 2016
- Ensured no pending ones prior to 2015
Details of the Resolved Cases
The resolved cases are many, but two of them dated back to the year 2002 and 2003 are worth mentioning. The bench had been stirred by these cases and delivered its vow to provide a justified verdict in the end after a proper hearing. Here is the information about these cases.
In the year 2002, Sarup Singh, an ex-assistant director (museum) from Patiala filed a case against the authorities who took the disciplinary action against him by putting up allegations like his misconduct during his tenure as an assistant director at the Sports Authority of India. Since his original application was partly accepted, the man registered a case against the authorities for penalising him on these allegations.
Also, in the year 2003, a case of fraud had been registered against Verinag for withdrawing a sum of INR 1500 from the departmental branch post master from Halsidar. The case had got transferred from there to this bench which resolved the case after proper procedure.
Going by the proverb “Better late than never” but also keeping the intensity and time limit in mind, the deliverability factor simply left the common man awestruck. Here’s wishing this bench a lot of success and applause for the achievement that made every citizen proud.