High Court Cannot Be First Forum for Service Disputes Covered by Central Administrative Tribunal: Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Holds Service Matters Must First Go Before Central Administrative Tribunal, Rejects Direct Writ Petition Despite Disability-Based Claims
Facts
The petitioner, Shri Suresh Kumar Rajput, approached the Delhi High Court challenging several departmental actions relating to his service benefits, disability status, allowances, increments, promotion, MACP benefits, retiral benefits, and compensation.
He also sought quashing of paragraph 17(vi) of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 11 November 2025 in OA No. 2183/2024. In that order, the Tribunal had set aside stoppage/recovery of certain benefits such as Transport Allowance, HPCA/PCA, bonus and annual increments, but also gave liberty to the respondents to revisit those benefits after issuing prior notice with reasons.
The petitioner further sought initiation of contempt proceedings against certain respondents for alleged violation of the Delhi High Court’s earlier order dated 6 April 2026.
The Delhi High Court divided the prayers into three categories: challenge to paragraph 17(vi) of the CAT order; other service-related reliefs; and contempt-related reliefs.
Issues
- Whether paragraph 17(vi) of the CAT order dated 11 November 2025 was liable to be quashed.
- Whether the Delhi High Court could directly entertain the petitioner’s service-related claims under Article 226 without the petitioner first approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal.
- Whether the petitioner’s contempt-related prayers could be decided in the writ petition itself.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the High Court had earlier reserved his right to directly approach the Court if he was aggrieved by any subsequent departmental action.
He contended that the case involved violation of fundamental rights, disability rights, natural justice, institutional fraud, and malicious administrative conduct. According to him, in such circumstances, the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction despite the availability of another remedy.
The petitioner also submitted that the Tribunal had already acted perversely and had become functus officio after passing its earlier order. Therefore, according to him, the Tribunal could not examine subsequent executive orders passed by the department.
It was further argued that since notice had already been issued in the writ petition by a coordinate bench, the issue of maintainability could not be reopened by the regular bench.
The petitioner also relied on urgency, stating that he suffered from 81% disability and was due to superannuate on 31 August 2026.
Respondent’s Arguments
The judgment records that an objection regarding maintainability was raised earlier, namely that the writ petition would not lie directly before the High Court and that the petitioner would have to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The maintainability objection was based on the principle that service matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal must first be adjudicated by the Tribunal, and the High Court cannot act as a court of first instance in such matters.
Analysis of the Law
The Court held that the petitioner’s claims, except the challenge to paragraph 17(vi) of the CAT order and the contempt prayers, were service matters under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The Court relied on Sections 14(1) and 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Section 14 gives the Central Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction over service matters, while Section 3(q) defines service matters to include remuneration, allowances, pension, promotion, retirement benefits, leave, disciplinary issues and other service-related matters.
Since the petitioner’s claims related to allowances, increments, promotion, MACP benefits, retiral benefits, disability status in service, and compensation arising out of service grievances, the Court held that these issues were clearly amenable to adjudication by the Tribunal.
The Court clarified that this was not a case of relegating the petitioner to an alternate remedy. Instead, the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to act as the first forum because the Tribunal alone was the competent court of first instance.
Precedent Analysis
The Court principally relied on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.
The Court noted that under L. Chandra Kumar, Tribunals continue to act as courts of first instance in matters for which they are constituted. High Courts can judicially review Tribunal decisions, but litigants cannot directly approach the High Court by bypassing the Tribunal in service matters.
The Court held that L. Chandra Kumar creates an absolute bar against High Courts acting as courts of first instance in matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The petitioner relied on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, arguing that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar in writ jurisdiction. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the principle of alternate remedy applies only when more than one forum has jurisdiction. Here, the High Court found that it had no first-instance jurisdiction at all.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court first held that there was no illegality in paragraph 17(vi) of the CAT order. The Tribunal had only permitted the respondents to revisit the grant of benefits after giving prior notice and reasons to the petitioner. Since the earlier stoppage of benefits was set aside on natural justice grounds, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the department to take a fresh decision after following due process.
On the remaining service-related reliefs, the Court held that it could not entertain the writ petition directly because the petitioner was required to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal first.
The Court rejected the argument that its earlier order dated 6 April 2026 allowed the petitioner to directly re-approach the High Court. The Court observed that the petitioner had misquoted that order; the earlier order had only preserved remedies available in law and did not permit bypassing the Tribunal.
The Court also rejected the argument that issuance of notice by a coordinate bench prevented the present bench from deciding maintainability. The Court held that notice had been issued without deciding the maintainability objection, and therefore the objection could still be considered.
The Court further held that the Tribunal was not functus officio. Any subsequent executive order created a fresh cause of action, which could be challenged before the Tribunal.
Although the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s disability and the hardship caused by repeated litigation, it held that jurisdiction could not be exercised on sympathetic or humanitarian grounds when Supreme Court precedent clearly barred it.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court rejected the petitioner’s challenge to paragraph 17(vi) of the CAT order dated 11 November 2025.
The Court held that the petitioner’s remaining service-related claims could not be directly entertained by the High Court and must first be raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a separate contempt petition for the contempt-related prayers.
To avoid delay, the Court permitted the petitioner to approach the High Court Registry for transmitting the writ petition record to the Tribunal, so that the matter could be registered as a substantive OA/TA before the Tribunal. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20 July 2026, and the Tribunal was requested to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within four months.
Case Details
Case: Shri Suresh Kumar Rajput v. GNCT of Delhi & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: W.P.(C) 8366/2026, CM APPL. 39995/2026
Judge: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar
Date: 6 July 2026
Result: Writ petition disposed of; challenge to CAT order rejected; contempt prayers left open; petitioner directed to approach Central Administrative Tribunal for service-related reliefs.
