Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010019602021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/727/2021 GAUTAM KALITA S/O SHRI MONESWAR KALITA, R/O EAST MILAN NAGAR, RATANPUR, P.O. C.R. BUILDING, DIBRUGARH, P.S. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN 786003 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPTT. OF POSTS, NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL ASSAM CIRCLE MEGHDOOT BHAWAN GUWAHATI 781001 3:THE POSTMASTER GENERAL DIBRUGARH REGION P.O. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH PIN 786001 4:THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR (STAFF) OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL DIBRUGARH REGION DIBRUGARH 786001 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES DIBRUGARH DIVISION P.O. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH PIN 786001 Page No.# 2/5 6:THE MEDICAL OFFICER POSTAL DISPENSARY DIBRUGARH C/O SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES DIBRUGARH P.O. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH PIN 78600 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G P BHOWMIK, MS M KALITA,MR D KALITA,MRS. M HORE Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. B DEKA,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 04/06/2026 Heard Mr. D Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Deka, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents. 2. Mr. Deka, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents, at the outset, has raised an objection, with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Deka, learned CGC submits that the petitioner is an employee of the Postal Department and accordingly, the present writ petition would not be maintainable before this Court at the first instance and the petitioner is required to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, for redressal of his grievances. Page No.# 3/5 4. The issue involved in the present writ petition, is covered by the provisions of Section 3 (q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and accordingly, the jurisdiction to consider the said issue, in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1985, would be before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, at the first instance. The said issue is no longer res integra after the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of L. Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261. 5. Para 93 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of L. Chandrakumar (Supra), being relevant, is extracted, hereinbelow : “93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on 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 with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have thepower to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the High Court concerned may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Courts. We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By this, we mean Page No.# 4/5 that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned.” 6. A perusal of the above quoted paragraph from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of L. Chandrakumar (Supra), would go to reveal that a High Court should not act as a Court of first instance, in respect of a dispute, which solely falls within the ambit of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court holds that the present writ petition would not be maintainable before this Court. 7. In view of the said position, Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition, with liberty to approach the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, with an appropriate application, for redressal of his grievances. 8. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted. 9. The present writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed on withdrawal, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, by way of filing an appropriate application. 10. It is further provided that in the event, the petitioner approaches the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, within a period of 45 (forty five) days from today, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, while considering the application for condonation of delay, in preferring the original application before it, shall take into consideration that the petitioner was Page No.# 5/5 bonafidely persecuting the issue, involved before this Court, in the present writ proceedings, w.e.f 02.02.2021. JUDGE Comparing Assistant