IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1146 of 2008 Smt. Meena Singh …….Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri Arvind Vashisth, Standing Counsel present for the Union of India. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Ramji Srivastva, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri Arvind Vashisth, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has challenged order dated 17.4.2008 passed by the Member Secretary, Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textile, B.T.M. Layout, Madivala, Bangalore (annexure no. 1 to the writ petition) whereby penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed on her. In the counter affidavit, a preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel representing Union of India that the department in which the petitioner was working i.e. the Central Silk Board has been notified on 22.4.2008 under Section 14 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the matter is cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. In view of the Constitution Bench Judgment in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1997 SC 1125, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 23.3.2011 Avneet