High Court Reaffirms Jurisdictional Boundaries: Why Your Service Dispute Belongs in the Tribunal

In a stern reminder of established legal procedure, the Delhi High Court has once again reiterated that entities like the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The court strongly deprecated the trend of litigants attempting to bypass the Tribunal to reach the High Court directly.

The Background of the Dispute

The petitioner, Meenakshi Tyagi, approached the Delhi High Court seeking to challenge an order issued by AIIMS on September 1, 2025. Her request sought a court direction to allow her to continue in her service. However, it was immediately noted by the bench that this matter inherently fell within the scope of "service matters" as defined by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Prior to this writ petition, the petitioner had already approached the Tribunal (O.A. 2625/2025), which had directed the matter to be treated as a representation to AIIMS. Despite this, the petitioner chose to approach the High Court, asserting that the subsequent order from AIIMS created a "fresh show cause of action."

The Jurisdictional Impasse

Counsel for the respondents and the court pointed out that the petition was fundamentally maintainable only before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The High Court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan, underscored that shifting the focus to a "fresh cause of action" did not circumvent the statutory requirement established by the Supreme Court.

The court referenced the iconic seven-judge bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India , which serves as the "north star" for jurisdictional boundaries in administrative law. The prevailing position is clear: in service matters involving bodies notified under the Administrative Tribunals Act, the Tribunal is the court of first instance. The High Court cannot be bypassed unless the very constitutionality (vires) of the Administrative Tribunals Act itself is challenged.

Key Observations

The court expressed deep frustration with the "endemic" practice of petitioners ignoring settled law.

• On the abuse of process: "It is a matter of some discomfiture to this Court that, nearly three decades after... L. Chandra Kumar v UOI... held that all matters... would have to be agitated before the Tribunal... petition after petition is still preferred in the High Court, in clear violation of the judgment."
• On the role of the High Court: "The litigant is completely proscribed from approaching the High Court in such matters, without first approaching the Tribunal."
• On the burden on the system: "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."

The Final Verdict: A Warning to Practitioners

Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the appropriate Tribunal. However, the order carried a significant warning. Highlighting that many lawyers continue to press such petitions despite knowing the jurisdictional limitations, the court observed that it might soon become necessary to impose heavy costs on parties to deter "forum shopping" or the misuse of the writ jurisdiction.

In a proactive step, the Court directed the Registry to forward a copy of its order to the Delhi High Court Bar Association, serving notice that the era of lenient disposal of these "misconceived" petitions is coming to an end.

For future litigants, the message is unequivocal: when it comes to service disputes in notified institutions, the path is exclusively through the Central Administrative Tribunal—a doctrine that the judiciary is clearly no longer willing to see ignored.