Lila Singh Aulakh vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr.

Facts

The Petitioner, Lila Singh Aulakh, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking various reliefs, including the quashing of an order dated February 11, 2020, continuation of employment until the age of 70, and payment of wages for the unexpired portion of his service, calculated at Rs. 42,57,861 plus 18% GST. The petition was filed in 2022. The Respondent was the Union of India and another entity. The core of the dispute appears to be a service matter concerning employment and associated financial claims.

Held

The Court held that the reliefs sought by the Petitioner fall under the definition of 'service matter' disputes as per Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Consequently, the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such matters lies with the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under Section 14 of the Act, as affirmed by the Constitution Bench judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. Therefore, the Delhi High Court was not the appropriate forum for the initial adjudication of this dispute. The Petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the CAT. The Court allowed this withdrawal, granting the Petitioner liberty to approach the Tribunal. The Court also directed that the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court since 2022 be considered by the Tribunal while deciding any question of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition concerning a service dispute as defined under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under Section 14 of the said Act? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner, through their counsel, sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal, implicitly acknowledging the jurisdictional issue. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Respondent. However, the Court's reasoning indicates that the Respondent likely did not contest the applicability of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.