IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (S/S) 1990 of 2005 Mohan Singh …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ….Respondents Present : Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel present for the Union of India. 2. The petitioner was a Central Government employee in the Postal Department. By means of the present writ petition, he has challenged the order dated 9.10.1999 by which his services have been terminated. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India Ms. Anjali Bhargava raised a preliminary objection that since the petitioner was a Central Government employee in the Postal Department, the writ petition is not maintainable in the first instance before this Court as the first remedy available to the petitioner is to seek remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. The writ petition is therefore dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner to seek remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal, particularly in view of the Constitution Bench Judgment in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1997 SC 1125. 5. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 17.11.2011 Avneet