N. Paul Vasanthakumar, C.J. - This writ petition is filed for expunging the words ""except the State of Jammu & Kashmir"" from Clause (b) of
Sub Section (2) of Section 1 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which, according to the petitioner, is offending Article 14 of the
Constitution of India to the persons residing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, who are appointed to the public services and posts connected
with the affairs of the State and for adjudication of their dispute which will ultimately reduce the burden of the High Court.
2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is enjoying special status which is conferred under Article 370 of the Constitution of India and bearing the said
issue in mind, the Parliament while enacting the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 in exercise of powers vested under Article 323 A of the
Constitution of India in Section 1(2)(b) has provided that the Act empowering to create the Administrative Tribunal for States is applicable, except
the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The said special status conferred under Article 370 of the Constitution of India to the State of Jammu and
Kashmir is not in dispute. In such circumstances, the wisdom of the Parliament in excluding the constitution of State Administrative Tribunal in the
State of Jammu and Kashmir under the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 cannot be declared as illegal as contended by the petitioner in this writ
petition.
3. The Central Government staff serving in the State of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of
Section 1(2)(a) of the Act as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2002) 4 SCC 145 (Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan and another v. Subhas Sharma).
4. The contention of the petitioner that all other States have constituted the State Administrative Tribunals is also not correct as in some of the
States the State Administrative Tribunals have not been constituted to resolve the dispute of the State Government employees. In some other
States, particularly in the State Tamil Nadu, even though the State Administrative Tribunal was created in the year 1988, due to the defective
functioning the said Tribunal was windup and all the cases which were earlier transferred from the High Court to the Tribunal or filed before the
Tribunal were re-transferred or transferred to the High Court. Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner that the State Government employees of
Jammu and Kashmir are discriminated has no basis.
5. In (1997) 3 SCC 261 (L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India), Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that even if the State Administrative Tribunal
is created the orders passed by the said Tribunal can be challenged before the High Court at the first instance i.e., before the Division Bench and
thereafter only the parties can approach Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Hence the reduction of pendency as pleaded by the petitioner cannot also be
achieved.
6. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we are unable to find any reason to issue any writ as prayed for. The writ petition is dismissed. No
costs.
