Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAJNEESH KUMAR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The High Court held that because an alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal is available, it will not interfere and dismisses the petition.

Summary

Rajneesh Kumar Singh, a railway employee, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 27‑01‑2026 and 17‑09‑2026 passed by respondent No. 3. The Union of India raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Court examined whether it could entertain the petition in view of the availability of that statutory remedy. Finding that the CAT provides the appropriate forum for disputes involving railway service matters, the Court declined to interfere. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the CAT if he wishes.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner, being a railway employee, must first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, thereby depriving the High Court of jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • alternative remedy
  • Central Administrative Tribunal
  • railway employee
  • jurisdiction
  • dismissal

Judgment

                                                  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                           WRIT - A No. - 15848 of 2026

                                    Rajneesh Kumar Singh
                                                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                      Versus

                                    Union Of India And 2 Others
                                                                                             .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)          :   Vibhu Rai
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)          :   A.S.G.I., Himkanya Srivastava

                                    Court No. - 33
                                                      HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

                                    1. This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 27.01.2026
                                    and 17.09.2026 passed by respondent No. 3.

                                    2. A preliminary objection has been raised by counsel appearing for
                                    Union of India that petitioner being a Railway employee has an
                                    alternative remedy of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal.

                                    3. In view of the availability of alternative remedy, I am not inclined to
                                    interfere in the matter.

                                    4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to
                                    approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, if so desires.



                                                                                   (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Nitika Sri.




Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.