https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385466 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. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Sep 2019 15:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385466 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385466