Delhi High Court
Dr Dharmendar Dahiya vs Department Of Health And Family ... on 11 September, 2020
$~A-5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11.09.2020
+ W.P.(C) 6155/2020 & CM No. 22073/2020
DR. DHARMENDRA DAHIYA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Abhishek Kaul, Advocate.
versus
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel GNCTD (services) with
Mr. N.K. Singh and Ms. Palak
Rohmetra, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by a doctor who is employed
with Respondent no. 1 i.e. Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The challenge in the present petition is to transfer
order dated 19.06.2020 issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi as well as to an
order dated 17.07.2020 whereby Respondent No. 2/Hospital has issued
directions for stoppage of the salary of the Petitioner with effect from
01.08.2020.
2. The nature of relief sought in the present petition is essentially a
"service matter" and the Delhi Government is covered under the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
3. In view of the above this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
present petition as the Petitioner is amenable to the jurisdiction of the
Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. The observations of the Constitutional Bench in L. Chandra
Kumar v. Union of India and Others, [(1997) 3 SCC 261] are relevant in
this context and the following passage is quoted hereunder:-
"99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that
clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B,
to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts
and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the
Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and
the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clauses in all other
legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and
323-B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The
jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles
226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our
Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other
courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in
discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and
32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article
323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution are possessed of
the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory
provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will,
however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of
the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal
concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to
act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law
for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore,
be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts
even in cases where they question the vires of statutory
legislations (except where the legislation which creates the
particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the
Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the
manner we have indicated."
5. At this stage Mr. Abhishek Kaul learned counsel for the Petitioner
seeks to withdraw the present Petition, with liberty to approach the
Central Administrative Tribunal.
6. Present Petition, along with accompanying Application, is
accordingly disposed of, granting the liberty, as prayed.
JYOTI SINGH, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2020/yo
