Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J
M.Fredy Edward – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs No.1 – Respondent
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Ravi
High Court lacks jurisdiction over retired Central Govt employee's service grievances; remedy lies before Central Administrative Tribunal.
Headnote:The petitioner, a retired employee of the Customs Department, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct consideration of his representation. The court examined the maintainability, referencing the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the ruling in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, which mandates that service-related grievances of Central Government employees be addressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court upheld the Registry's objection on jurisdiction. The core issue was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction over post-retirement service benefits disputes. The ratio decidendi affirms that, per L. Chandra Kumar, such matters fall exclusively under the Tribunal's purview, barring direct High Court petitions. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition not maintainable; remedy before tribunal. (Para 2) |
| 2. registry objection upheld. (Para 3) |
O R D E R
Registry has raised an objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition before this Court and accordingly, this writ petition is listed today under the caption “For Maintainability”.
2. The petitioner herein is an employee retired from the Customs Department of the Union of India. Therefore, for any grievance with regard to his service and other benefits either while he was in service or after he retired from service, the appropriate remedy is before the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in the light of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261
3. In view of the above, the objection raised by the Registry is upheld.
