1 wp-9130-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9130 OF 2010 K. Appa Rao .. Petitioner Vs. Shri Lambodar Mishra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. K. Ram Murthy with Mrs. Minal P. Mokal for petitioner. Mr. R.R. Shetty for respondent-UOI. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. NOVEMBER 26, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Ram Murthy with Mrs. Mokal the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is presently holding the post of Additional General Manager, Ordnance Factory Estate, Yeddumailaram in Medak District of Andhra Pradesh and in this petition filed under Article 226 of the 2 wp-9130-10 Constitution he seeks to impugn the order dated 30/1/2009 passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. 284 of 2008 which was filed by the present respondent no.1. CAT, Mumbai Bench accepted the grievance of seniority and consequential promotion of respondent no.1 and Mr. Shetty the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India states that on account of the contempt petition moved by respondent no.1 before CAT, Mumbai, the impugned order has been implemented in October, 2010. 3. At this stage, if the petitioner claims to be an aggrieved person by the order dated 30/1/2009 passed by CAT, Mumbai in O.A. No. 284 of 2008, his remedy at the first instance is to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Ajit Babu and ors. vs. Union of India and ors. [1997 SCC (L&S) 1520]. In the said case the Supreme Court considered the Full Bench decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of John Lucas vs. Addl. Chief Mechanical Engineer, South Central Railway [(1987) 3 ATC 328] and it held that a right of review is available to the aggrieved person but on the restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of CPC and if filed within the period of limitation. In other cases, 3 wp-9130-10 the remedy for the aggrieved person is to file an O.A. before the bench which has territorial jurisdiction. Hence, it is for the petitioner to choose the remedy. If he feels that his review petition will be within the period of limitation period, he may approach the Mumbai Bench of CAT and if he has lost the limitation, he has to approach the Hyderabad Bench of CAT. When this remedy is available before CAT, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the impugned order cannot be entertained by us, more so when the petitioner was not a party to the said proceeding i.e. O.A. No. 284 of 2008. This view is supported from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and ors. [AIR 1997 SC 1125]. 4. Hence, the petition is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedy before the appropriate Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.) 4 wp-9130-10