VIDYA SHARMA Vs. H.P.HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, as the petitioner has already availed a remedy under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and has filed an application (O.A. No. 831 of 1990) challenging her termination, which is presently pending. In the said application the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal has passed order on 3 -8 -1990 directing the respondents to re -engage the petitioner on daily wage as Dispatch Clerk and in pursuance of that order the petitioner is in service. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming pay and allowances of the post of Clerk on the principle of equal pay for equal work and appointment on regular basis as Clerk.

(2.) Shri H.M Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition could not be asked for in the application filed in the State Administrative Tribunal as these were not available to her, till she was reinstated According to Shri Sharma, both High Court and State Administrative Tribunal have concurrent jurisdiction, therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable.

(3.) We do not find any substance in these submissions. In our opinion the petitioner could ask for these reliefs in the application filed by her, if not, she could amend her application or file another application in State Administrative Tribunal, which forum she chose at the first instance. It is not her case that in the State Administrative Tribunal she is not likely to get reliefs within a reasonable time or there is any other reason for not seeking these reliefs there. By now it is well settled that a writ Court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution if alternative statutory remedy is available, more so, if a party has already availed it and matter is pending before such a forum, as in the present case. In Carl Still G.M.B.H and another v. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 1961 SC 1615, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court has held : - .........It is true that if a statute sets up a Tribunal and confides to it jurisdiction over certain matters and if a proceeding is properly taken before it in respect of such matters, the High Court will not in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a prerogative writ so as to remove the proceedings out of the hands of the Tribunal or interfere with their course before it. But it is equally well settled that when proceedings are taken before a Tribunal under a provision of law, which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the court under Article 226 for issuing appropriate writs for quashing them on the ground that they are incompetent without his being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course........." Also see : K.K. Shrivastava etc v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain and others, AIR 1977 SC 1703 ; The Assistant Collector of Central Excise v Jainson Hosiery Industries, AIR 1979 SC 1889 and The East Bulliaree/Kendwadih Colliery Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1983 Delhi 70.