Heard Sri Onkar Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Saran, learned Standing Counsel.
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the recovery order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the opposite party No.2.
On an objection being raised by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has got specific, efficacious and alternative remedy by filing Claim Petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, a specific query is being put to learned counsel for the petitioners as to why he may not be relegated to the Tribunal for redressal of his grievances, learned counsel for the petitioner instead of advancing any submission on the ground of alternative remedy has started arguing the matter on merit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner did not advance any submission with regards to the alternative remedy.
The Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Versus Union of India and others [1997 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 577 has held that the Tribunal are competent to hear the matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned and also have power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules and as such, the Tribunal would very well look into the illegality of the Government Orders, which are being assailed in the instant writ petition.
The Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and others Versus 2 Sahngoo Ram Arya and another [(2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 521], has held that when the statute has provided for the constitution of a Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes of a government servant, the fact that the Tribunal has no authority to grant an interim order is no ground to bypass the said Tribunal. It was also held that in an appropriate case after entertaining the petitions by an aggrieved party if the Tribunal declines an interim order on the ground that it has no such power then it is possible that such aggrieved party can seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution but that is no ground to bypass the said Tribunal in the first instance itself.
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before the Tribunal.
Since I have relegated the matter to the Tribunal, as such, I am refraining myself from recording any observations on merits of the case.
Dt.3.2.2010 Lakshman/-