Alternative remedies bar writ jurisdiction where compulsory retirement and damages claims can be pursued through statutory and civil forums.

A writ petition challenging compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) was not maintainable because effective alternative remedies existed. The service grievance could be pursued before the Central Administrative Tribunal, while the damages claim lay in a civil suit under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court held that combining both forms of relief in one petition did not by itself attract Article 226 jurisdiction, and there was no basis to treat the retirement order as so patently erroneous or perverse as to warrant direct writ interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, along with a claim for damages, was maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedies.

Analysis: The relief against compulsory retirement concerned service matters for which a statutory remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal was available. The claim for damages could be pursued by way of a civil suit under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The existence of these remedies meant that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not attracted merely because both forms of relief were joined in one petition. The Court also found no basis to treat the retirement order as so patently erroneous or perverse as to justify direct writ interference.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where effective statutory and civil remedies are available for the grievances raised, the High Court ordinarily will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 merely because the petitioner combines those claims in one proceeding.

---