Manoj Chauhan v. Union Of India And 5 Others

: Gyanendra Srivastava, Raj Kumar Gupta, Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Shiv Kumar Pal Satish Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

#1. Heard Sri R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri S.K. Pal, learned 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, since the order dated 31.07.1998 has been sought to be challenged passed by the Railways. 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 R.P. Gupta, 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 having jurisdiction over it. October 30, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.)