The High Court cannot entertain challenges to decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal; such matters must first be addressed within the Tribunal's jurisdiction per established rules.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner on call. I have heard Mr. M. R. Adhikari, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court by challenging the Speaking Order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, N.F. Railway, Lumding and further sought for direction that the application of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment in the Group-D post or any other post be considered.

3. Mr. M. R. Adhikari, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. In that regard, he has referred to the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 (for short ‘Rules of 1993’) and more particularly to Rule 154 read with Appendix VI of the said Rules of 1993. The learned CGC also referred to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261

4. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition.

5. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner is the daughter- in-law of one Kiran Balmiki (since deceased) who died in harness on 27.05.2020. The record reveals that the Petitioner thereupon submitted various representations seeking for pensionary benefits as well as for appointment on compassionate grounds upon the death of her mother-in- law while in service. The said representations having not found any favour, the Petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench by filing Original Application No.040/00365/2023. The said application filed before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench was disposed of vide an order dated 06.12.2024 whereby there was a direction issued upon the Respondent Authorities herein to consider the last pending representations of the Petitioner submitted in August, 2021 in accordance with law as well as taking into account the observations made therein by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The said order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench was served upon the concerned Respondent Authorities.

6. In pursuance thereto, vide an order dated 24.03.2025, the pensionary dues of the Petitioner have already been paid to one Ms. Puja Balmiki, the daughter of Late Kiran Balmiki. However, on the aspect pertaining to compassionate appointment, it was mentioned that no such application has been received in the proper format.

7. In the backdrop of the above, the question therefore arises as to whether this Court should entertain the challenge to the communication dated 24.03.2025. In this regard, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of Rule 154 of the Rules of 1993 which classifies the cases subject wise/department wise. Further to that, a perusal of Appendix VI reveals that amongst the various department wise classification of cases, cases falling within the ambit of Ministry of Railways fall within the domain of Central Administrative Tribunal. This aspect is also appears to be an admitted position on the part of the Petitioner inasmuch as the Petitioner had initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. In this regard, this Court also finds it pertinent to take note of Paragraph No.93 of the judgment in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) which is reproduced herein under:

“93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions o