IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1207 (SS) of 2011 Ghanshyam …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel present for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pande, learned counsel present for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vikas Pande, learned counsel for the respondents. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issue involved under Section 14 (2) of the Tribunals Act. In view of the constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1997 SC 1125, such cases, in the first instance should be heard by the Central Administrative Tribunal, alone. Since the matter is cognizable in the first instance by the Central Administrative Tribunal, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 29.08.2011 passed by respondent no. 3 is without jurisdiction, as such, inspite of the alternative remedy the petitioner has filed the present writ petition which is totally misconceived and judgments relied upon by him in case of Damayanti Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in [2008 (2) U.D. 517]; in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in [1998 (8) SCC 1] and BCPP 2 Mazdoor Sangh & Anr Vs. N.T.P.C. & Ors reported in [JT 2007 (12) SC 156] are not applicable in the present case. Writ petition is therefore dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs. Dated: 12.09.2011 (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) VKG