Bypassing the Tribunal: Delhi High Court Curbs Direct Filing in Service Disputes

The Delhi High Court has once again signaled a zero-tolerance policy toward the practice of bypassing the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in service-related disputes. In the matter of Meenakshi Tyagi v. Union of India , Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed a writ petition, reinforcing that the Tribunal acts as the exclusive court of first instance for all matters concerning service conditions of notified entities like the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

The Path Untaken

The petitioner, Meenakshi Tyagi, had approached the High Court to challenge an order issued by AIIMS. Notably, the petitioner had previously approached the Tribunal (O.A. 2625/2025) for identical relief, which had resulted in a direction to have the issue treated as a representation to AIIMS. Despite being warned by the Court’s Registry that the matter fell within the domain of the CAT, the petitioner pressed the writ petition on the ground that the subsequent AIIMS order created a "fresh cause of action."

A Decades-Old Mandate

The core legal question before the Court was whether a litigant could ignore the structured hierarchy of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by approaching the High Court directly. Invoking the landmark seven-judge bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India , the Court underscored that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is not merely a preference but a mandatory procedural requirement.

Drawing upon recent Division Bench rulings in Parikshit Grewal v. Union of India and Manish Kumar v. Union of India , the Court highlighted that nearly three decades of judicial precedent have clearly established that the High Court cannot serve as the entry point for service disputes.

Key Observations

The Court expressed significant frustration over the persistent filing of petitions that ignore established jurisdictional boundaries. Emphasizing the sanctity of the L. Chandra Kumar ruling, Justice Jalan remarked:

• "The position of law laid down by the seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India... does not admit of any doubt."
• "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."
• "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."

Implications and Judicial Warning

Acknowledging the "endemic" nature of this disregard for jurisdictional norms, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea with the liberty to move the Tribunal. However, the order serves as a stern warning: the High Court is now contemplating the imposition of costs on counsel and litigants who insist on filing such petitions directly, signaling that the era of leniency is coming to an end.

The Court has directed the Registry to circulate this order to the Delhi High Court Bar Association to ensure that the legal fraternity is adequately cautioned against continuing this practice. For litigants, this judgment acts as a firm reminder that adherence to procedural hierarchy is the first step toward getting their grievances heard.