Service-related writ petitions are not maintainable when an efficacious KAT remedy is available.

The petitioner, a State government employee, challenged orders withdrawing him from deputation and posting him as Joint Director, Yadgir, before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT).

The KAT set aside those orders. A subsequent charge memo alleging non-reporting for duty was also challenged and quashed by the KAT.

The petitioner later sought regularisation of the disputed period, 26 April 2010 to 9 October 2011, as compulsory waiting period.

The authorities had initially treated part of the period as “Dies-Non” and subsequently classified it as commuted leave and extraordinary leave.

An Additional Director recommended treating the period as compulsory waiting period, but the petitioner’s request remained undecided by respondent No. 1.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to grant that treatment and consequential benefits.

1. Whether the petitioner could pursue the requested service-related relief directly before the High Court when a remedy before the KAT was available.

2. Whether the disputed period should be treated as compulsory waiting period, with consequential service and retirement benefits.

The Court did not decide this issue on its merits.

Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, confers jurisdiction on the State Administrative Tribunal over specified service matters concerning State employees.

The Court applied the principle that where an efficacious statutory remedy is available before the competent tribunal, a petitioner should pursue that remedy rather than seek the same relief through a writ petition; it relied on Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510.

The Karnataka Civil Services Rules provisions concerning waiting period, “Dies-Non,” commuted leave and extraordinary leave were referred to in recounting the administrative decisions, but the Court did not determine their application to the petitioner’s claim.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s claim arose from the treatment of a period of State service and therefore fell within the service-matter jurisdiction of the KAT under Section 15.

The petitioner had previously invoked the KAT to challenge both the posting orders and the charge memo, and the Court considered the KAT an available forum for seeking the present relief as well.

Although the petitioner relied on the administrative recommendation and the authorities’ failure to act on his representation, the Court held that he ought to have approached the KAT rather than the High Court.

It consequently did not assess whether the disputed period should be regularised as compulsory waiting period.

The Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to pursue any remedy available to him in accordance with law.