Sikandar Dagdu Pathan Vs the Union of India through Its Postal and Telegraphs Dept. and Ors.

The principal relief claimed by the petitioner by presenting this writ petition is that the respondents ought to have appointed him as a Postman with retrospective effect from March 14, 2011. However, such was not the relief claimed by the petitioner in Original Application No.07 of 2008 decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai by its order dated April 07, 2011, out of which this writ petition arises. In fact, the petitioner has not even challenged the order April 07, 2011 and has directly moved this Court for relief, as noted above.

In our view, a Division Bench of the High Court would not be vested with the powers to entertain a grievance of a Central Government employee, which has not been raised before the Tribunal at the first instance. Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others, 1997 (2) SCR 1186 , the remedy of the

1/2

Prajakta Vartak

5-wp 12919-18

petitioner lies in approaching the Tribunal once again praying for such relief as is permissible in law.

This order shall not preclude the petitioner to approach the Tribunal, in accordance with law.

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶20

Digitally signed by PrajaktaS. Prajakta S.VartakDate: Vartak 2021.02.12 13:03:21 +0530

2/2

Prajakta Vartak

Sikandar Dagdu Pathan v. the Union of India through Its Postal and Telegraphs Dept. and Ors.