Sunil Kumar v. The Union Of India And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/409/2022 Sunil Kumar Vs The Union of India and others Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ajay Majhi ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents January 9, 2025 [SR] Item no. 7 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief claimed by the petitioner is in respect of his service, which is not notified under section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2.

The submission is made in view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel representing the Directorate of Shipping Services that the writ petitioner was first required to move the Central Administrative Tribunal for the relief prayed for in the present writ petition. 3.

The order dated 07.09.2021 assailed in the present proceeding is passed on a representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to the directions for exhausting alternative remedy passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.351/843/2021, earlier filed by the very same petitioner in respect of the self-same relief.

4.

The petitioner therefore, cannot be permitted to approach this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

in view of the specific mandate of the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandrakumar -vs- Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, wherein the Apex Court has held in paragraph 99: " .... 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. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated."

5.

The Court thus put a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there is any pleading in the writ petition regarding the petitioner's services being of such a nature that requires a notification under section 14 of the Tribunal's Act ?

6.

The learned counsel has failed to point out any such pleadings in the writ petition. A reference, however, is made to paragraph 3 of the writ petition which reads as follows: "3. That the writ petitioner is a seaman and his service conditions are governed by various orders of the Director General of Shipping and by the nature of his service he is not governed under CCS & CCA Rules and therefore the writ petition is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court."

7.

In the writ petition, the petitioner has not made out any case that his services were required to be notified under section 14 of the Act for bringing it within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. There is no averment in the writ petition that the grievance relating to the petitioner's services are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central

Administrative Tribunal. Relief has been claimed by the writ petitioner in respect of his services under the Directorate of Shipping Services, Andaman and Nicobar Administration. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is thus required to exhaust his remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Such conclusion of the Court is fortified by the decision of the Apex court in the case L.Chandrakumar (supra), relevant extract of which has been quoted above. The present writ petition should not have been filed directly to this Court without exhausting remedy before the Tribunal. 8.

Leaving the petitioner to avail his remedy in accordance with law, the writ petition is dismissed.

( Madhuresh Prasad, J.)