2026:HHC:4988 IN THE HIGH Court OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.546 of 2018 Decided on: 28.02.2026 Sant Kumar … Petitioner Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Naveen Awasthi, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition the petitioner has, inter alia, assailed order dated 30.06.2017 (Annexure P-2), which is an order passed by the Authority concerned in compliance to the directions issued by learned Central Administrative Tribunal in vide order dated 28.02.2017, in O.A.No.063/00120/2015, titled Shri Sant Kumar Vs. BSNL & Ors.. 2. A preliminary objection has been taken with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition by the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that as the impugned order is assailable before the learned Administrative Tribunal, therefore, same has been wrongly assailed by the petitioner before the Court without exhausting the statutory remedy. 3. Having perused the contents of the petition as well as documents appended therewith including the impugned documents, this Court is of the considered that the present petition is not maintainable. The impugned order has been passed by the Authority 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:4988 in compliance to the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, then the Fora where the order has to be challenged is the learned Administrative Tribunal and not the High Curt. It is order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal which can be assailed before the High Court in light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others, 1997 (3) SCC 261, but a order passed pursuant to the direction of Central Administrative Tribunal or an Administrative Tribunal does not confers a right to the party to invoke the jurisdiction to the High Court directly without first approaching the Administrative Tribunal. 4. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner should have at the first instance had approached the learned Tribunal rather than invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. As prayed for by learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that in case the petitioner does intends to assail the order before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, then learned Central Administrative Tribunal may take into consideration the factum of the petitioner pursuing the remedy before this Court in case any application is filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge February 28, 2026 3 2026:HHC:4988 (Rishi)