IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. CWP NO.330 of 2006. Date of Decision: 29.4.2008 _____________________________________________________ Surjan Singh …. Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, vice Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. YPS Dhaulta, Central Government Counsel. Deepak Gupta, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs:- (i) That the respondents may be directed to grant service pension to the petitioner for the service rendered by him w.e.f. 9.12.19981 to 31.10.1995 i.e. about 14 years of qualifying service for pension/gratuity calculated and expressed, completed twenty eight half years service with the relevant benefits . Further the respondents are also directed to grant revised/amended service pension with other benefits w.e.f. 1.4.1997 ________________ whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes (ii) That the respondents may also be directed to grant merge of 50% of DA component in the basic pension w.e.f. 1.4.2004 including all other service benefits which are due and admissible to the applicant as per the rules. There is no manner of doubt that the reliefs claimed relate to service matters. The petitioner was an employee of the Directorate of Film Festivals which falls under the National Film Development Corporation Ltd., In fact now the Directorate stands merged in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. The petitioner was a Central Govt. employee and therefore, the jurisdiction to hear this matter initially lay only with the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1125 in para- 99 has clearly held that even though the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts is not ousted an employee must first approach the Administrative Tribunal and only thereafter can approach this Court. In view of the law laid down by Apex Court, we reject this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. The time spent in pursuing the present writ petition may be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the application under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. ( Deepak Gupta), Judge (Kuldip Singh), Judge April 29, 2008 (sks)