The grievance of the petitioner is against the Government Order dated 17.04.2018 made by the respondent-Director General & Inspector General of Police at Annexure-A. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Civil servant and his grievance fairly falls within the four corners of the provisions the the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate, Professor E.S.Indiresh, appearing for the respondents.
2. Although, this Court has got the jurisdiction even in respect of the grievance of the kind in question, still this Court declines to interfere in the matter since there is the State Administrative Tribunal established under the Act for granting redressal thereto. The Apex Court in the case of
L.Chandra Kumar vs Union of India , (1997) 3 SCC 261 at paragraph 99, has observed as under:
99. The Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal. .
3. The petitioner has not offered any explanation for not invoking the alternate and equally efficacious remedy that avails to him under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. No special circumstances having been shown warranting indulgence of this Court, the exercise of Writ Jurisdiction is declined.
4. In view of the above, this writ petition fails; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy in accordance with law and that the observations made herein above shall not come in the way of such availment.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner fervently submitted that he should be granted interim relief and that would facilitate his approaching the State Administrative Tribunal. I am afraid that such relief ordinarily cannot be granted. When the statute has provided for the constitution of a Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes of a government servant, the fact that the Tribunal has no authority to grant an interim order is no ground to bypass the said Tribunal. In an appropriate case after entertaining the petitions by an aggrieved party if the Tribunal declines an interim order on the ground that it has no such power then it is possible that such aggrieved party can seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution but that is no ground to bypass the said Tribunal in the first instance itself, vide SECY. MINOR IRRIGATION & RURAL ENGG. SERVICES, U.P. vs. SAHNGOO RAM ARYA (2002) 5 SCC 521. The Registry is directed to return the certified copies of the impugned orders by retaining the photo copies thereof. Sd/- JUDGE
Comments