High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 6, 2026, held that it cannot entertain a writ petition as a court of first instance in relation to "service matters" that fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar observed that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India create an absolute jurisdictional bar. The Court emphasized that even on sympathetic grounds or humanitarian considerations involving a person with a high degree of disability, it cannot bypass the constitutional and statutory framework governing specialized tribunals.

The petitioner, Suresh Kumar Rajput, an individual with 81% disability, approached the High Court seeking a multitude of reliefs, including the quashing of a portion of a CAT order and a writ of mandamus for implementation of "High Support Need" status under the RPwD Act. He further sought directions for promotional benefits to the post of Section Officer, restoration of withheld salary arrears, and exemplary damages of ₹75 lakhs from several officials for alleged misfeasance. The dispute arose from the petitioner's service conditions under the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) and previous rounds of litigation before the Tribunal.

The primary question before the court was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to act as a court of first instance in service-related disputes amenable to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court was also called upon to determine if the Tribunal committed a legal error in reserving liberty to the respondents to revisit certain financial benefits after providing due notice to the employee.

The Court first addressed the challenge to paragraph 17(vi) of the Tribunal’s order dated November 11, 2025, which permitted the respondents to revisit decisions regarding annual increments and allowances after providing a prior notice and clear grounds to the petitioner.

Court Finds No Illegality In Tribunal’s Direction For Prior Notice

The Bench observed that the Tribunal had previously set aside the stoppage of the petitioner's emoluments because it was done without notice, violating the principles of natural justice. The Court held that there was no legal infirmity in the Tribunal reserving liberty for the department to take a fresh decision, provided it followed the due process of law.

High Court Is Coram Non Judice In Service Matters Under AT Act

Regarding the prayers for promotion, pay fixation, and damages, the Court held that it was coram non judice—meaning it lacked the legal authority to hear the matter. Referring to the Seven-Judge Bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI, the Court noted that Tribunals act as the only courts of first instance for the areas of law for which they are constituted.

L. Chandra Kumar Bar Is Absolute And Mandatory

The Court highlighted that while the High Court’s power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it can only be exercised over a decision of the Tribunal. Litigants cannot directly approach the High Court by overlooking the jurisdiction of the specialized Tribunal in service matters defined under Section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Procedural Mandates Not To Be Viewed As Hyper-Technicalities

The petitioner argued that "hyper-technicalities" should not defeat claims related to human rights and disability. However, the Bench rejected this submission, stating that requiring a litigant to approach the competent forum is a constitutional mandate under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India, and not a mere technicality.

"We cannot exercise jurisdiction on sympathetic and humanitarian grounds, where the Supreme Court has held otherwise."

Tribunal Not Rendered Functus Officio After Final Judgment

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s contention that the Tribunal had become functus officio (having fulfilled its function) after its 2025 judgment. It clarified that the Tribunal retains the authority to deal with challenges to fresh executive orders passed pursuant to liberty granted in a judicial decision, as such orders constitute a new and independent cause of action.

Contempt Of High Court Mandates To Be Agitated Separately

Insofar as the petitioner sought the initiation of contempt proceedings for the alleged violation of earlier High Court orders, the Bench opined that these would have to be separately agitated through a dedicated contempt petition. The Court reserved liberty for the petitioner to move an appropriate petition in this regard if so advised.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by rejecting the challenge to the Tribunal’s previous order. While acknowledging the petitioner's 81% disability, the Court relegated the remaining service-related grievances to the CAT. To prevent further delay, the Court permitted the transmission of the writ record to the Tribunal to be treated as a fresh Original Application and requested the Tribunal to decide the matter within four months on an expedited basis.

Date of Decision: 06 July 2026