Judgment :

Arindam Mukherjee, J.

1. The appeal arises out of an order dated 9th August, 2024 passed in WPA/68/2024 where the appellant, an employee under Jawaharlal Nehru Rajkeeya Mahavidyala, (in short ‘JNRM’ as the writ petitioner, has sought for relief in respect of his service related benefits.

2. Admittedly, an employee of JNRM is a person holding a civil Port under the Union.

3. The learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition in view of the provision of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and relying upon the Judgment of L.Chandrakumar vs. Union of India reported in 1997(3) SCC 261 held that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to receive, by and determine the writ petition and thereafter granting leave to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.

4. The appellant has challenged the said order on the ground that alternative remedy being not an absolute bar for entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition ought to have been decided on merits.

5. The appellant has also submitted that, if a writ petition has been entertained and directions for affidavits have been given, the Court should, instead of relegating the petitioner to the alternative forum, decide the writ petition on merits.

6. The appellant has cited two judgments – one delivered by the Allahabad High Court in WRIT-C.No.26239 of 2020 on 15th September, 2023 and a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1331 (State of U.P. Vs. Ehsan and another) in support of his contentions as aforesaid. Although, these two judgments should be present presumed to have not been cited before the learned Single Judge as they do not find place in impugned order, yet for the ends of justice and as they relate to a point of law we do consider the same.

7. After hearing the parties and considering the judgments cited at the bar, we are unable to accept the contention of the appellant and also do not find any scope to interfere with the judgment and order impugned for the following reasons.

(i) The ordinary forum in case of the disputes relating to service related issues of a person holding a civil post under the Union or State in view of the provisions of Section 14 and 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with the provision of Section 28 and 3(q) of the said Act is the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the said Act. This position has been clarified in L.Chandrakumar (supra) by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

(ii) In the instant case, the petitioner is admittedly holding a civil post under the Union. The ordinary forum is, therefor, the Central Administrative Tribunal for the petitioner to ventilate his grievance in respect of his service related claims.

(iii) The jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal again fell for consideration in All India Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi reported in 2020(17) SCC 602 : AIR 2019 SC 2971 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering L.Chandrakumar (Supra) has held that an Administrative Tribunal is even competent to here the issues relating to constitutional validity of any statute except the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 uner which it has been constituted.

(iv) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roger Methew vs. SouthIndian Bank Limited reported in 202(6) SCC 1 and 2023 (4) SCR 18 M/s South Indian Bank Ltd & Ors. vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another has again clarified that the jurisdictional High Court can entertain a writ petition when the Tribunal is in operative or has not been constituted. At the present the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench is functional. So writ petition in such a case cannot be entertained by this Court.

(v) There is no dispute as to the proposition that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition. However, a writ petition can be entertained where the same is (a) for enforcement of any of the fundamental r