Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/161/2005 of V.K. CHOUBEY Vs NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HYDROLOGY and ORS. on 31 December 2010
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 161 of 2005 Dr. V.K. Choubey ……….Petitioner. Versus National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee And others …..Respondents Mr. Jagdish Singh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, Standing Counsel for
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALWrit Petition No. 161 of 2005
Dr. V.K. Choubey
……….Petitioner.
Versus
National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee And others
…..Respondents
Mr. Jagdish Singh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents/Union of India.
Dated: December 31, 2010
Coram:Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)
In paragraph-4 of the writ petition, it was stated by the petitioner that the National Institute of Hydrology has not been notified under Central Administrative Tribunal Act. Accordingly, it was pleaded in the petition that the petitioner has no other alternate efficacious remedy, except this High Court, to redress his grievances in relation to service matters highlighted in the writ petition. This assertion was not denied or disputed in the counter affidavit. However, on the threshold of the hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the Notification wherefrom it appears that National Institute of Hydrology is one of the Institutions notified under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the said Notification had been published subsequent to filing of the writ petition, this Court will not loose its jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as was vested in it on the date of filing of the writ petition. Even assuming the writ petition, it shall be deemed that the writ petition was pending at the time when the jurisdiction pertaining to the writ petition stood vested in the Central Administrative Tribunal and, accordingly, in terms of the directions contained in the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, the same is required to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. Since it is not known whether the Notification was published before or after the filing of the writ petition, but since the consequences thereof will be the same, and as in accordance with the mandate of the Act interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench judgment rendered in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1997 (3) SCC-261, the grievances highlighted in the writ petition must be first decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. We, accordingly, dismiss this writ petition as withdrawn and permit the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.
3. In view of what has been stated above and, inasmuch as, this matter is pending in this Court since 2005, we only observe that in the event, petitioner approaches the Central Administrative Tribunal, it would appropriate on the part of the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide the matter at an earlier dated.
NCM:
(V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
31.12.2010