Special appeal dismissed as the lower court erred in entertaining a writ petition regarding Union service. Jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Central Administrative Tribunal, affirmed via L. Chandra Kumar.
The writ petition is dismissed; respondents are directed to avail of the remedy under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 388 of 2018
Appellant :- Union Of India And 2 Others Respondent :- Ajay Vir Singh And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Gyan Prakash,Apurva Hajela
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Shri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. Apurva Hajela, learned Central Government Counsel.
This appeal is before us to question correctness of the order dated 24th November, 2017 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 55415 of 2017. By the order aforesaid, learned Single Bench disposed of the petition for writ.
The argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that the issue in question pertains to service under Union of India and as such, the jurisdiction to adjudicate such cause was available to the Central Administrative Tribunal created under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. It is stated that the issue in the instant matter is not of availability of alternative remedy but exclusion of jurisdiction of Courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. On going through the averments contained in the petition for writ and the documents annexed thereto, we are satisfied that the matter pertains to a service matter relating to Union of India and the respondents-petitioners are not member of any armed force pertaining to that the Act of 1985 is not having application. Section 28 of the Act of 1985 excludes the jurisdiction of all the Courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to entertain and adjudicate any issue as involved in this petition for writ at a first
instance. The jurisdiction available to this Court is not only for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari after having a judgment/order from the Central Administrative Tribunal and not prior to that. The legal position mentioned above is well settled since the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1995 SCC (1) 400.
In view of whatever stated above, we are having no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the learned Single Bench erred while entertaining the petition relating to the cause involved. The writ petition hence is dismissed. The respondentspetitioners shall be at liberty to avail the remedy under the Act of 1985 in accordance with law.
Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.2.2020 VMA
(Samit Gopal, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition in a service dispute involving Union of India employees before invoking the Central Administrative Tribunal remedy?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and othersRelied on¶7
L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, 1995 SCC (1) 400 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Union Of India And 2 Others
Ajay Vir Singh And 4 Others
Govind Mathur
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
