f^. s IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPUR (CHHATTSSGARH) W.P.NO. S'OQ / 2002 PETITIONER / / RESPONDENTS .<>• ^^ ^I^- •^ > .'-^. ^ - ^,.,, .^ "^^'^ ^. ^ ^^.»^^ R.L.Amravanshi, S/o Shri N. L. Amravanshi, aged about 55 Years, Presently posted as Chief Vigilance Officer, South Eastem Coamelds Ltd., BUaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^> 1. Union oflndia through Secretary Mlnistiy of Coal, New Delhl. 2.CoalIndia Limited, a Company incorporated under the Co/sAct and Undertaking of Govemment of India throughits Chairman, 10, Netajl Subhash Road, Kolkata-700 003 CWrest Bengal) 3. Secretaiy, Ministry of Home Affalrs [IPC III SecUon], Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi. South Eastem Coalfields Ltd., Through its Chairman-cum- Managing Dlrector, SECL HQs. Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG) M.^.. .'^.^ ^'^ ^^/ WRIT PETITZON UNDER ARTZCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WMT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHmiTION. CERTIORARI AND FOR_OTKSR_APPROPmATE_WRIT/WMTS. DIRECTION/DIRECTZONS. ORDER/OSIDERS: ^— XI-HC-22 W^T^^T f^it^ 3Tj^T ^RNmfi^ 'J^S^ ^^ ';:^FTM^[, ^Tff^re, 't^T?^y '^TO^T^HI^_.^:L..^ol£^ 3Tr^r ^m^R ^Tftn 06.03.2002 Heard Shri Manindra Shri petitioner, Shri P.S.Nair, Senior counsel for respondents No.2 & ©overnmentStanding Counsel for decision, if any, taken by th^ application of the petitioner for illegal, arbitrary ouid inoperative nature of mandamus directing th consideration relevant material in respondents from discontinuing Chief Vigilflince Officer till the ^N^Tt^ -WTOf ^ 'fe^t I^?K ^ ^Tf^R aTT^I I'astava, learned counsel for the bounsel with Mr. Pendse, learned 4 and Shri A.S.6aharwar, Central itespondents No,l & 3. The petitioner has in this ^etition sought for quashing of the respondent No.l rejecting the ^xtension by declaring the same as uiider' the law and issue a writ in the respondent No.l to take just and fair decision on the petitionei^'s representation by taking into iaccordance with law, restraining the ^he petitioner from the office of m^ttter is just flnd fairly considered in accordonce with law as per the pnjctice of this Hon'ble Court. Retum has been filed on b^half of respondents No.2 & 4 roising -ebjections^- Thp. obljedJ!mJs^haiJi!®^etitionerj£a [^^ai i-^^^^fe -^. » XI-HC-22 ^IT^'^T f^:ri^^^it¥r "^fW^ift^ ^i -"S^ ^TPTi^f^, ^xlK-i^^ 'fa^TI^y ..w.1.^.. •'^?^^tI"^RI^ ^IT^T I^T^R ^Tft?[ •^- ©overnmentof India employee and ©overnmentof India <xnd closure dc^f deputation was also made by the Union of India. In the circumstancjes, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition filed bjy the petitioner and the petitioner has to approach the Central Admjnistrative Tribunal for approprkite relief. It is not disputed that the employee and he was deputed to for threeyears. In the circumstances, I amj judgment in the case of L. Chan<(lra the petitioner is only to approach for appropriate relief. Accordingly, the Writ Peti reserved to th@ petitioner to o\ 'w^pfh' 'Hpra:f ^ ft^ if^T^R ^'Sti^i 3?1^¥[ his deputation was ordered by the oetitioner js a ©overnmentof India respondent No.2-Co<»l Indkx Limited of the opinion that in view of the Kumar Vs. Union of India and others. reported in (1997) 3 Supr4me Court Cases 261, this Court has no jurisdiction to enter-tain the pr^sent Writ Petition. The remedy to the Central Administrative Tribunal ^•ion is dismissed. The liberty is ^prnnrh thp^£ntelLAdflU13^tcatiye [^^f^ XI-HC-22 ^sf ^iq«n4,^•ai^Ko, M<r<i^y ..^:.)?.:.£pp. ^W^fI^W^ ^n^T^i l^T??. ^^ '^^ich ^fi^T Subbu/Ak ^T^T'^najT ^fl"^ -3- '^TSjfeFft?f ^TR^f ^ 'fe^t ^S^R •^^NH-^I^ Tribunal for appropriate relief. I^ the petitioner approaches the Centrol Administrative Tribunal wi-^h an application for oppropriate interim order, the Tribunal woul|]l consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance wit^i law. Sd/- Chief Justice