IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 551 OF 2011 (S/S) Anand Singh Rawat and others. ………...Petitioners. Versus Union of India and others. ……….Respondents. Present: Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel for Union of India. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel for Union of India. The petitioners are employees of “Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, Dehradun” (from hereinafter referred to as ICFRE). This body has been notified under Section 14 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 14 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 reads as under: “14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.— (1) …. (2) The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to corporations [or societies] owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or corporation [or society] controlled or owned by a State Government: Provided that if the Central Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by 2 this Act, different dates may be so specified under this sub-section in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of, local or other authorities or corporations [or societies].” This being the position of law, the matter has to go Central Administrative Tribunal and more particularly in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1997 SC 1125, this Court cannot hear this writ petition at the first instance. As the petitioners have an equally efficacious remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 1.9.2011 Kuldeep