Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri K.C. Sinha, Assistant Solicitor General of India, on behalf of the respondents.

2. Petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment being offered on the ground that his father Sri V.D. Sharma has expired during harness on 21st November, 2000. According to the petitioner his father was a permanent employee in the Ordinance Factory at Muradnagar. The application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 5th March, 2001. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal. The appeal so filed was not decided within reasonable time and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9174 of 2002. The writ petition was decided under order dated 16th July, 2002 with a direction upon the concerned authority to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner.

3. The appellate authority by means of the order dated 10th October, 2002 rejected the appeal so filed. Against the order of the appellate authority petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48036 of 2002. The writ petition was finally allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 25th February, 2002 and the orders dated 5th March, 2001 and dated 10th October, 2002 were quashed. The matter was remanded to the authority concerned for deciding the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh in light of the observations made by the Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that by means of the impugned order dated 29th July, 2004 application of the petitioner has been again rejected by the authority, on clear misreading of the directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 25th February, 2002. Hence the present writ petition.

5. On behalf of the respondents two preliminary objections have been raised:

(i) Petitioner has the remedy of an appeal as was filed earlier by the petitioner against the order dated 21st November, 2000.

(ii) In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 261, proper remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act at the first instance.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforesaid preliminary objects, submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its recent judgment in the case of T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2003(4) ESC 393 (SC) has held that extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court, can be exercised, even where statutory legislation provides for an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal constituted under the Act.

7. Reference has also been made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Brijesh Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(1) ESC 441 (All) wherein this Court has held that availability of statutory alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in entering of a writ petition.

8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid issue, it would be worthwhile to reproduce Paragraph-93 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) in so far as it deals with the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vis-a-vis the jurisdiction conferred upon the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Paragraph-93 is being quoted herein below :

“93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions of the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set up, been specifically entrusted