RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7252/06 Dr. A.K. Surya v. The Director General & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Vikram Singh Nain, for petitioner Mr. Virendra S. Gurjar, for respondents *** Petitioner has assailed orders dated 21st November, 2005 & dated 31st October, 2005 by instant petition which was filed in the registry of this court on 12th September, 2006. After notices were issued to the respondents, reply has been filed wherein preliminary objection has been raised that dispute raised by petitioner is covered under the provisions of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. As such, remedy is not available for petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Counsel for petitioner has also examined and submits that jurisdiction certainly lies before the CAT, but his only grievance is that petitioner has approached as per legal advice extended to him and delay will come in his way while filing appeal before the Tribunal. In view of remedy available to the petitioner under the Central Administrative Act, 1985, this court is not inclined to entertain the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. CW 7252/06 [2] Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, if such appeal is preferred under the Act, 1985 along with application seeking condonation of delay, certainly the Tribunal will consider objectively about pendency of this petition in this court while examining grievance raised by petitioner. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA7252CW2006 27-5.doc
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985; Constitution of India — art. 226; Central Administrative Act, 1985.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 27 May 2008. The bench was AJAY RASTOGI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.