Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 197872 (ALL)

PARIKSHIT PANDE v. U.O.I. THRU. SECY. DEPTT. OF RAILWAY NEW DELHI AND 6 OTHERS

WRIA/11573/2025 · 2025-10-10

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11573 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.S.B.Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Varun Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 to 5. 2. In view of order being passed in this petition, issuance of notice to opposite party Nos.6 & 7 stands dispensed with. 3. Petition has been filed seeking challenge to orders dated 28.08.2025, 29.08.2025, 08.09.2025 and 19.09.2025 pertaining to his repatriation/ transfer. 4. Learned counsel for opposite parties at the very outset has taken a preliminary objection regarding entertainability of this petition before this Court since petitioner is a Central Government employee and present petition would be maintainable before Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261] as well as of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Dina Nath Yadav and 2 others vs Union of India and others, Writ-A No. 9638 of 2025. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner in rebuttal thereto submits that availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and petition can be entertained before this Court as well. 6. Though there is no absolute bar in entertainability of petition before Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Atharva Arya, Shri Kishan Prajapati Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. Parikshit Pande .....Petitioner(s) U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Railway New Delhi And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even in case of availability of alternative remedy, but in view of the nature of relief sought in writ petition, it would be appropriate for petitioner to approach Central Administrative Tribunal. In case any such petition is preferred before the Tribunal, same is to be decided, expeditiously, without granting undue adjournments to either parties. 7. With aforesaid direction(s), petition is disposed of. October 10, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 11573 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench