(3)-WP-13052-24.doc PANCHAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13052 OF 2024 Amar Atmaram Sagale ...Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents ... None for the Petitioner. Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge, for the Respondents. ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.: 1. In view of the order dated 10th September, 2026, we find that the Petitioner’s Counsel has not turned up in the instant proceeding. 2. Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents on the other side submits that even under the facts and circumstances the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, as initially the Petitioner has pressed the OA before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. The relief was negated, which was again subject matter of challenge before this Court in writ jurisdiction. Later on, while entertaining the Writ Petition only leave that was accorded was to press the Application, which 1 BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Digitally signed by BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Date: 2026.09.18 10:15:45 +0530 (3)-WP-13052-24.doc was again turned down by the Respondent. The said decision can be challenged before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. In light of the above, Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 4. In view of an alternate statutory efficacious remedy the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that in spite of our endeavour extended to the Petitioner’s counsel vide order dated 10th September, 2026, he has not turned up in the instant proceeding. 5. For the above reasons, including availability of alternate efficacious remedy as noted above, we are not inclined to entertain the present Petition. 6. The Writ Petition is Dismissed. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 2