2025:UHC:1190 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No. 334 of 2024 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/Union of India. 3. The Notification dated 22.06.2017 is taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working with the AIIMS wherefrom his services were terminated and thereafter, he was reinstated on the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Petitioner now wants the back wages of the period during which, his services were terminated and for the said purpose, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The relief sought by the petitioner squarely falls for consideration by the Central Administrative Tribunal created under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Moreover, the provisions of Sub-Section 3 of Section 14 of the said Act are applicable on the respondent autonomous body-AIIMS, Rishikesh by virtue of Notification dated 22.06.2017. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Union of India submits that this petition is not maintainable before this Court on the ground of alternate remedy before the Central 2025:UHC:1190 Administrative Tribunal (CAT). 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Central Administrative Tribunal would at least take 3 to 4 years in deciding the original application filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the matter may be heard by this Court. 7. This Court is of the view that this cannot be a ground to oust of the jurisdiction of the CAT. Therefore, in view of the Notification dated 22.06.2017, whereby the AIIMS, Rishikesh has been brought under the Central Administrative Tribunal, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Petitioner may agitate his cause before the Central Administrative Tribunal. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.02.2025 Akash