THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 14757 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is an association of certain employees (Accounts category-III) in the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. It challenges a circular dated 06-04-2010, through which, the office of the 1st respondent took note of the fact that large number of employees in the organization have applied for leave, as a matter of protest, and directing that all kinds of leave sanctioned between 05-04-2010 and 09-04-2010 shall stand cancelled. Direction was also issued to the Unit heads, not to sanction any leave, between 05-04-2010 and 09-04-2010. Earlier to that, the office of the Comptroller and Accountant General of India, the 2nd respondent herein, addressed a letter dated 30-03-2010, directing that large scale absence of casual leave or dharnas would attract Rule 7 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the CCA Rules’), and informed the unit heads to ensure that, such a situation does not arise. The petitioner challenges the circular dated 06-04-2010, and letter dated 30-03-2010. It is pleaded that the mass casual leave on 05-04-2010 was planned to press the Government, to accede to the longstanding just demands of the employees. According to the petitioner, the circular and letter violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Heard Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government, for the respondents. The petitioner is an organization of employees of the Central Government. Though no independent relief is claimed, any matter concerning with the service conditions of the Government employees, can be claimed only before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act bars the jurisdiction of the High Courts, in such matters. It is not as if the petitioner is not aware of this, and has approached this Court on an advice being rendered to it. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner filed an Original Application before the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, in relation to the same issue, but in a different perspective. The only reason pleaded by it, for approaching this Court, directly, is that, the Supreme Court in its judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others[1] and T.K. Ranga Rajan v. State of Tamilnadu[2] permitted of such an approach. It is difficult to discern from the judgments, referred to above, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted filing of writ petitions, straightaway in the High Court. Further, the extraordinary circumstances that were employed in Ranga Rajan’s case (2 supra) are not at all present, in the instant case. The petitioner appears to have realized that it can not get any relief, if it approaches the Central Administrative Tribunal. The writ petition is not at all maintainable in law. Further, the proceedings challenged in the writ petition do nothing more than restate the legal position, under the CCA Rules. No action as such has ensued. At any rate, the circular as well as the letter served their respective purposes, and if at all they have given rise to any independent cause of action, remedies have to be pursued in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. 07-12-2010. KO [1] 1997 (3) SCC 261 [2] AIR 2003 SC 3032