ORDER The petitioner is a retired Hostel Superintendent in the Department of Social Welfare, Chickamagalur District. While he was in service, he remained unauthorisedly absent from 16.12.1996 to 4.1.2001, for which he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and it was ended in treating the period from 12.6.1996 to 4.1.2001 as unauthorized absent and further imposing penalty of reduction of 25% of the pension for a period of five years. Aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 15.12.2011 vide Annexure “K”, this writ petition is presented. 2. Petitioner was a Hostel Superintendent in the Department of Social Welfare, he was a Government servant. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 15(1)(b) of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which reads as under: “15. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals. (1) xxxxxxxxxxxx (a) xxxxxxxxxx (b) all service matters concerning a person [not being a person referred to in clause (c) of this subsection or a member, person or civilian referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 14] appointed to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the State and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the State or of any local or other authority under the control of the State Government or of any corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the State Government.” 3. Section 15(1)(b) of the Act provides that the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority execisable immediately before that day by all Courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to all service matter concerning a person appointed to any civil service of the State of any Civil post under the State and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the State or of any local or other authority under the Control of the State Government or of any Corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the State Government. The question therefore, is whether appointment under the Government in a Department can be stated to be appointment to any Civil Service of the State or any Civil post under the State. ‘Civil Service of the State’ includes all persons holding office under the State. The question therefore, is whether appointment under the Government in a Department can be stated to be appointment to any Civil Service of the State or any Civil post under the State. ‘Civil Service of the State’ includes all persons holding office under the State. The holder of a Civil Post is a person serving or employed under the State of the Civil Side as distinguished from defence services. The preliminary tests therefore are (i) whether the duties which the servants of Government are required to perform are in connection with the affairs of the State (ii) whether the expenditure towards their pay and allowances are met by the State; and (iii) whether their service conditions (recruitment, pay, pension, disciplinary action etc.) are regulated by Rules made by the Government. If the said tests are applied, there can be no doubt that the servants of the Government in a Department hold Civil Posts and they are appointed to Civil Service of the State. 4. The Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 held that the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and of Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court also held that various tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution, will function as court of first instance and are subject to the power of judicial review of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench also held that these tribunals are empowered even to deal with constitutional questions and can also examine the vires of statutory legislation, except the vires of the legislation which creates the particular tribunal. The Constitution Bench also held that these tribunals are empowered even to deal with constitutional questions and can also examine the vires of statutory legislation, except the vires of the legislation which creates the particular tribunal. Further at Para 93 it has been specifically held as under: “93.....We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted." …..By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned.” It is therefore crystal clear that the Tribunals will function as the only Court of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted and even where any challenge is made to the vires of legislation, excepting the legislation under which Tribunal has been set up, in such cases also, litigants will not be able to directly approach the High Court overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The aforesaid propositions have been repeated again by the Constitution Bench (in L. Chandra Kumar case). 5. In view of the said repeated and authoritative pronouncement by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, the approach made to this High Court by the petitioner for the first time in support of his service disputes over which the State Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction is not legally sustainable. The principles laid down in L. Chandra Kumar’s case virtually embody a rule of law and in view of Article 141 of the Constitution, the same is binding on the High Court. 6. Having regard to the proposition laid down by the Apex Court and as petitioner has already retired from service after attaining age of superannuation, I am of the view that the writ petition be transferred to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. Registry to transmit writ papers to Tribunal within two months. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.