HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15040 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Sri Amit Kumar Singh has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Amit Kumar Singh for the respondent no. 2. 3. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking following reliefs.- "i. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the respondent no.3, the Additional Central Provident Fund (P.F.) Commissioner, (Recruitment), Employees Provident Fund Organisation Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India (Annexure no.15 to the writ petition). Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of ii.JBTALandamus commanding the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to join on the post of Enforcement Officer/Account Officer in pursuance to the letter of appointment dated 24/26.09.2024 with all consequential benefits of continuation of service from the date, the candidates selected along with the petitioner have been granted. iii. Any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; iv. Award costs of the writ petition throughout to the petitioner." 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Amit Kumar Singh on the ground that the present writ petition may not maintainable for the simple reason that the writ petitioner has an alternate and efficacious Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Mohan Asthana Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amit Kumar Singh, A.S.G.I., Jagdish Pathak Ashwani Bajpai .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) remedy for approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal while filing an Original Application under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. He seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India : AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1125. 5. Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the writ petitioner could not dispute the said legal position, however, according to him a direction be issued to the Tribunal to decide the original application which would be preferred by the writ petitioner with most expedition. 6. Accordingly, interference is declined, the present writ petition stands disposed of leaving it open petitioner to take recourse to the provisions contained under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 while preferring an Original Application before the Tribunal. October 7, 2025 Rajesh WRIA No. 15040 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad