The High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The court held that the jurisdiction lay with the Central Administrative Tribunal and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition to file before that forum.
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.
$~49
VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Kaul, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Avnish Singh, Sr. Panel Counsel with Ms. Shweta Yadav, Advocate for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT O R D E R % 15.04.2019
The jurisdiction of the issue raised in the present petition lies with the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Therefore, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdrawn the instant petition and file before the appropriate Forum.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
APRIL 15, 2019 rhc
VINOD KUMAR
UNION OF INDIA
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
