CWP No.7242 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7242 of 2009 Date of decision : 8.2.2010 Raghuvansh and another ...Petitioners Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL **** Present: Mr. R S Bains, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to pay them as well as respondent No.3 in equal share the service benefit along with 12% interest accrued to late Rameshwar Dayal Indora, being his legal heirs. An application bearing Civil Misc. Application No.180 of 2010 has been filed by respondents with a prayer that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed because the dispute raised in the present writ petition falls within the definition of term 'Service Matter' as per Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act') and in view of the Notification No.A- CWP No.7242 of 2009 --2-- 11019/16/86-AT dated 2.5.1986 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, the Employees State Insurance Corporation has been brought under the purview of the Act w.e.f. 12.5.1986. The applicants have also filed a copy of the Notification as Annexure C-1 with the said application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has no objection if the application is allowed and the petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but the objections regarding limitation and maintainability of petition may not be raised by the respondents before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents states that in case the petitioners approach the Central Administrative Tribunal within one month from today, the objections with regard to limitation and maintainability of the petition before the Tribunal shall not be raised by the respondent-Corporation. In view of the above and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioners are relegated to the remedy of approaching Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of their grievance. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. February 08, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) atulsethi JUDGE