"Endemic Malaise": Delhi High Court Rebukes Practice of Bypassing Administrative Tribunals

In a stern reminder of institutional discipline and judicial decorum, the Delhi High Court has once again underscored that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) remains the exclusive court of first instance for service-related disputes. In the matter of Meenakshi Tyagi v. Union of India & Anr , Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed a writ petition filed by an employee of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), warning that the increasing trend of bypassing statutory forums may soon attract the imposition of heavy costs.

The Backdrop: A Procedural Misstep

The petitioner, Meenakshi Tyagi, had approached the High Court seeking to challenge an order dated September 1, 2025, passed by AIIMS. Notably, this was not the first time the petitioner had sought judicial intervention; she had previously approached the Tribunal (O.A. 2625/2025), which had directed her to represent her grievances directly to the institution. Despite the registry explicitly noting the lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner persisted in seeking relief from the Writ Court, claiming the fresh order constituted a new cause of action.

Judicial Precedents and the 'L. Chandra Kumar' Mandate

The High Court’s frustration was palpable, citing the constitutional and legal mandate established by the seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) . The court noted that it is "completely befuddling" that nearly three decades later, litigants continue to attempt to sidestep the Tribunal.

Justice Jalan referenced two recent Division Bench directives— Parikshit Grewal v. Union of India and Manish Kumar v. Union of India —which categorized the practice of filing writ petitions in service matters as an "endemic malaise." These precedents clarify that unless the vires of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 itself is challenged, the High Court cannot and should not entertain service-related grievances as a court of first instance.

Key Observations: The Court in Focus

In its order, the court highlighted the burden placed on the judicial system by such filings:

> "Despite the categorical judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, the Court is faced with several petitions each week, where the jurisdictional position is known to counsel, but the writ petition is nonetheless pressed."

> "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. This practice is strongly deprecated."

> "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: A Formal Warning

The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to approach the appropriate Tribunal. However, the order served a broader notice to the legal community. By directing the Registry to circulate the order to the President and Secretary of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, Justice Jalan signaled that the era of tolerating jurisdictional "short-cuts" is drawing to a close.

For legal practitioners and litigants, the message is unambiguous: the statutory hierarchy is not a suggestion—it is a binding requirement of the rule of law. Future attempts to circumvent the CAT are now explicitly warned to invite punitive costs, marking a significant shift toward stricter judicial efficiency in the Delhi High Court.