Ajay Mohan Goe o l, Judge (Oral) B C y way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the h Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for g issuance of direction to learned Himachal Pradesh i
Administrative Tribunal to return back the records of the H
case file TA No. 1907 of 2015 to this Court on the ground that CWP No. 2373 of 2013 filed by the petitioner in this Court was wrongly transferred by this Court to Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
1
2
2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, keeping in view the reliefs prayed for in CWP No. 2373 of 2013, the case could not have been transferred to learned .
Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in view . of P law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 3557 of 2H 009, Pawan Kumar versus State of H.P. and others decided on 14.07.2011 and CWP No. 780 of 20 o 01,
fDeep Ram versus
State of H.P. and others t decided on 20.12.2001. Accordingly, he prays that r this petition be allowed and order vide which writ u petition was transferred to learned
Himachal Prades o h Administrative Tribunal be recalled
and learn ed C Administrative Tribunal be directed to send back the case to this Court to be tried and adjudicated by this h Court as a writ petition.
ig 3. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional H
Advocate General has opposed the prayer so made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the present petition is totally misconceived as keeping in view the fact that issue raised in the writ petition i.e. CWP No.
3
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case.
5. CWP No. 2373 of 2013 was filed in this Court .
praying for the following reliefs: .P
"i. That the respondent may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on regular basis f as has H been done in the cases of similarly situated pers ons, i.e. Mahesh Kumar, Jeet Ram, Ishwar Dass etc., with all consequential benefits inc luding seniority, pay etc. oii. That the records r of t t he case may kindly be summoned for perusal. iii. That or an u y other order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in the interest o o f justice." 6. I C t cannot be disputed that the writ so filed pertained to service matter and as per the law declared
by H h on'ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs.
ig Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 the court of first H
instance to adjudicate upon service matters is Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. 7. There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition could not have been transferred in view of law laid down by this
Court in judgments referred to above because it is
4
neither the case of the petitioner that what stood assailed in CWP No. 2373 of 2013 was an award passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court nor the petitioner .
can call upon this Court to recall the transferred ca . se P on the ground that the reliefs prayed in the petition in fact pertain to Industrial Disputes Act. This f is forH the reason that in case the issues raised in th o e transferred case are in the domain of Industrial Tribunal Act, then it is for the learned Tribunal to pass a r pprtopriate orders in the same
after taking into co u nsideration the averments made
therein as well as o prayers made therein and the law laid
down by this Court. However, the transferred case cannot
be recalle d Cto this Court on the said pretext.
h In view of the above, as there is no merit in
ig this petition, the same is dismissed. No orders as to H
costs. Registry is directed to send back the records of the case to the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal forthwith.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
11thJanuary, 2016. (narender)