The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. The inefficacy of the alternative remedy due to the considerable delay in the writ petition's adjudication rendered it unfair to dismiss the petition solely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

Ajit Singh, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No. 1068/2011 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

2. The appellant while working as Cashier-in-Charge with respondent No.2, Allahabad Bank was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and the disciplinary authority vide order dated 29.1.2010 imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement on him. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority but it too was dismissed vide order dated 12.3.2010. The appellant then filed WP(C) No. 1068/2011 before this High Court which was admitted for final hearing.

3. Respondent No.2, during the course of final hearing, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the appellant being a workman, has an alternative remedy of raising an industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Single Judge agreed with respondent No.2 and dismissed the writ petition with a liberty to the appellant for availing the alternative remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. It is well settled that rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. It is also well settled that notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy, if the petition has been admitted by the Court and remained pending for a considerable long period, it renders the alternative remedy out of reach or makes in inefficacious.

5. In the case at hand, appellant’s writ petition was admitted for final hearing in the year 2011 and it has been dismissed after five years on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The alternative remedy available to the appellant apparently became inefficacious because the writ petition after admission remained pending for five years. The learned Single Judge, therefore, instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, in all fairness, ought to have decided the same on merit.

6. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 8.11.2016 and remand the matter for its decision on merit by the learned Single Judge.

7. The appeal is allowed.