Dismissed

Pappu Niranjan Parida and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2015WP/9128/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition by a registered employee seeking review of a Central Administrative Tribunal order on service grounds, holding that the remedy of filing a writ was barred due to the availability of an alternative administrative remedy. The court declined to entertain the petition, distinguishing cited precedents, as the service statute provided a specific remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to adopt appropriate remedy; no order as to costs.

Pappu Niranjan Parida and Anr. Vs Union of India and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

903-wp9128.15.sxw

¶2

ssm 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9128 OF 2015

¶4

Pappu Niranjan Parida & Anr. Vs.

¶5

….Petitioners.

¶6

Union of India & Ors. ….Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Subhash Jha I/by Law Global Advocates for the Petitioners. Ms. Neeta Masurkar a/w Mr. Vinay Masurkar and M.S. Bharadwaj for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND

¶9

A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 23 SEPTEMBER 2015.

¶10

ORDER:-

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, as well as, the Respondents.

¶12

2 The Petitioners, though not party to the proceedings initiated by other similarly situated persons through O.A. Nos. 343 of 2013, 210 of 2015, 517 of 2013 and 475 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai is impugning the order dated 19 August 2015 by directly filing the present Writ Petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

1/3

903-wp9128.15.sxw

ssm 2

3 We are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition, as the

¶17

remedy is available to the Petitioners in law needs to be exhausted. We have considered the Judgments of the Supreme Court in K. Ajit Babu & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.1 and Gopabandhu Biswal Vs. Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors.2 cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondents which deal with somewhat similar aspects. The Judgments cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners viz. (1) K. Ajit Babu, (2) Gopabandhu Biswal (supra) , are distinct and distinguishable on facts, as well as, on the law. We are dealing with the service matter, where the statute itself provides remedy to such aggrieved persons. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, we decline to entertain the present Writ Petition.

¶18

4 Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to adopt appropriate remedy. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶20