Saurabh Lavania, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Gibran Akhtar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Surangama Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as per the writ petition, are to the effect that an advertisement dated 08.10.2010 was issued for inviting the applications to the post of Architect on contract basis for two years on consolidated salary for Rae Bareilly project of the petitioner/Ircon International Limited, New Delhi. The respondent-Deepak Yadav was given appointment vide order dated 28.10.2010 on the post of Architect and his tenure was extended till 31.12.2018.
(3.) In the meantime, the respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 32978 (S/S) of 2018 before this Court. The same was dismissed by the order dated 14.11.2018, the same is quoted below:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and to Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of writ petition before this Court by making submission that IRCON International Ltd. has been notified under Section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, therefore, the petitioner has remedy to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in view of the judgment rendered in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, 1997 AIR(SC) 1125. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, petitioner is at liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow for redressal of his grievances.";