Sri Srinivasa V vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Sri. Srinivasa V., a Central Government servant, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an endorsement dated 27/04/2023, issued by the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru North Commissionerate (Respondent No. 5). The petitioner is aggrieved by this endorsement issued by his employer. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents include the Union of India, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, and the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru North Commissionerate.

Held

The High Court held that since the petitioner is a Central Government servant, he ought to have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru, for redressal of his grievances. The Court reasoned that the CAT is the appropriate statutory forum established to deal with service matters pertaining to Central Government employees. Therefore, the writ petition filed before the High Court was not the correct procedural path. The Court explicitly reserved liberty for the petitioner to approach the CAT. The time spent by the petitioner in filing the present writ petition was directed to be excluded for the purpose of limitation before the CAT. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition filed by a Central Government servant challenging an endorsement issued by his employer, when the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) is the appropriate forum for such grievances? The petitioner, a Central Government servant, approached the High Court directly with a grievance against an endorsement from his employer. The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, did not file a detailed counter but the Court considered the nature of the petitioner's employment and the available legal recourse. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the endorsement issued by Respondent No. 5. The specific grounds for challenging the endorsement were not detailed in the provided text, but the primary action was to seek relief from the High Court. Revenue's contention: The respondents, through the Additional Solicitor General, implicitly argued that the petitioner, being a Central Government servant, should have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, as it is the designated forum for service-related matters concerning Central Government employees.