Alpana Washington v. Mishra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly, interference is declined, the present writ petition stands disposed of leaving it open petitioner to take recourse to the provisions contained under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 while preferring an Original Application before the Tribunal. October 13, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas…
Judgment
#1. Heard Sri Vishwanath Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
#2. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that the present writ petition may not maintainable for the simple reason that the writ petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy for approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal while filing an Original Application under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. He seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India : AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1125.
#3. Sri Vishwanath Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner could not dispute the said legal position, however, according to him a direction be issued to the Tribunal to decide the original application which would be preferred by the writ petitioner with most expedition.
#4. Accordingly, interference is declined, the present writ petition stands disposed of leaving it open petitioner to take recourse to the provisions contained under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 while preferring an Original Application before the Tribunal. October 13, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.