End of the Line for Writ Petitions in Service Matters: Delhi HC Reaffirms Tribunal Primacy

In a firm message to litigants seeking to bypass statutory forums, the High Court of Delhi has once again clarified that service-related grievances must be channeled through the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Presiding over the case of Meenakshi Tyagi v. Union of India & Anr. , Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed the petitioner's plea, citing nearly three decades of settled law.

The Background: An Attempt to Bypass the Tribunal

The petitioner, Meenakshi Tyagi, approached the High Court seeking to challenge an order issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) dated September 1, 2025. Notably, this was not the petitioner’s first attempt at finding legal recourse; she had previously approached the Tribunal via O.A. 2625/2025. Following a Tribunal directive that the matter be treated as a representation to AIIMS, the petitioner sought to challenge the subsequent AIIMS order directly through a writ petition in the High Court, effectively bypassing the Tribunal's appellate oversight.

The Legal Stand: Why the Court Said "No"

The core issue turned on whether the High Court could act as a court of first instance in a service dispute involving a notified entity like AIIMS. Justice Jalan relied heavily on the landmark Supreme Court decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) , which established that the Tribunal is the mandatory court of first instance for all matters falling under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Court emphasized that exceptions to this rule are narrow, restricted only to cases where the very constitutional validity or "vires" of the Administrative Tribunals Act itself is challenged. Seeing no such challenge in this petition, the Court found the filing to be a procedural error.

Key Observations from the Bench

The Court’s frustration with the rising trend of bypassing tribunals was palpable. Citing recent precedents such as Parikshit Grewal v. Union of India and Manish Kumar v. Union of India , Justice Jalan noted that the judiciary is increasingly burdened by petitions that violate established jurisdictional norms:

• On the Persistence of the Practice: "All matters, which fall within the purview of Section 14 of the AT Act have first to be agitated before the Tribunal. It is the Tribunal alone which can entertain these matters, as a court of first instance."
• On the Impact of Writ Direct-Filing: "Such cases not only jeopardise the litigant’s interest by burdening them with unnecessary effort, time, and resources, but also impose an undue burden on the writ Court."
• On Potential Future Penalties: "The Court is compelled to observe that, in such cases, it may now be necessary to adopt the practice of imposition of costs, even at the stage of withdrawal of the petition."

The Verdict and Its Implications

The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw her plea with the liberty to approach the appropriate forum—the Tribunal. However, the ruling carries a stern warning: the Court indicated that it is reaching a point where it will begin imposing costs on litigants who repeatedly ignore the settled law regarding tribunal jurisdiction.

As a regulatory measure, Justice Jalan directed the Registry to share a copy of this order with the Delhi High Court Bar Association, signaling that the bar and the bench are expected to align with these jurisdictional mandates to ensure that legal resources are not squandered on preventable procedural disputes. For future litigants, the takeaway is clear: the road to relief in service matters begins at the Tribunal, not the High Court.