CWP No. 37 of 2001 7.5.2008 Present: Mr.Sharawan Dogra, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. With the consent of the parties the matter is delinked from CWP No. 144 of 2000 and other connected matters. The petitioner has straightway approached this Court by means of this writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of the H.P State Government and holds a civil post. This matter is a service matter, squarely covered under the provision of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction to first hear the matter lies only with the Tribunal. The apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1125, in para 99, held as follows:- “In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that Clause 2(d) of Article 323 A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323 A and 323 B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other Courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323 A and Article 323 B 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. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated. In view of the aforesaid observation of the apex Court, it is apparent that in respect of any service matter an employee has no right to straightway approach this Court. He must first file application under the provision of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the Tribunal concerned and only thereafter can approach this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as not maintainable at this stage with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the learned Tribunal for redressal of his grievances. The time spent in pursuing the present writ petition shall be excluded while computing the limitation for filing the original application. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. May 7, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. ™