1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.1224/2006 Charan Singh Vs. General Manager (P) Northern Railway & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 21-01-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA Mr. B.K. Pathak, for the appellant. Heard Mr. B.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant. This special appeal(writ) is directed against order dated 5.9.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.9196/2002. It appears from the materials on record that writ application filed by the appellant for grant of writ treating his entire period of service from 13.6.1984 to 30.6.1989 as on duty and to regularise his services and pay all the consequential benefits. Basically, the prayer of the appellant pertains to his service conditions and his grievances, therefore, were redressable under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1985') as he was employee of the railways. However, the writ application was admitted and finally it was dismissed. This Court while entertaining this appeal at the initial stage vide order dated 26.9.2007 had pointed out as to the maintainability of this appeal in view of the specific provisions laid down under the Act of 1985. 2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant however, attempted to impress upon the Court that the matter since was entertained by this Court in writ jurisdiction and the matter remained pending for several years, it would not be proper and just to now ask the appellant to seek remedy under the provisions of the Act of 1985. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant since was acquitted of the criminal charges by this Court, he was entitled to raise the question to treat him in services regularly as if he had never superannuated from service. Section 14 of the Act of 1985 postulates about the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal and by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, all service matters covered under this provisions would lay before the Central Administrative Tribunal and at the same time, Section 28 of the Act ousts the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court. On scrutiny of the materials on record, it appears that the appellant may have a case before the Central Administrative Tribunal but in no way, the writ could have been entertained and merely because the writ was entertained and admitted but was dismissed on merit, in no way confer any right upon the appellant to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. At last, learned counsel argued that since the matter remained pending before this Court for several years, appellant should not be asked to avail the alternative remedy before the Central 3 Administrative Tribunal. The contention of learned counsel appears to be wholly misconceived, inasmuch as there is no question of alternative remedy, rather it is a question of inherent lack of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain such grievances which are covered under the provisions of the Act of 1985. The issue pertaining to the provisions of Act of 1985 thus, in no way or in no manner, can be entertained by this Court ousting the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court having been faced with the situation of inherent jurisdiction, therefore is not inclined to interfere in the matter. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.LODHA],J. [NARAYAN ROY],CJ. Praveen