ORDER : I.A. No. 7583 of 2018 This Interlocutory Application is for condonation of delay of 280 days in filing the appeal. 2. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and find that there was sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. 3. We, accordingly, condone the delay of 280 days in filing the appeal. 4. I.A. No. 7583 of 2018 stands disposed of. L. P. A. No. 393 of 2018 5. This appeal arises out of W.P. (S) No. 7714 of 2012. The appellant before us is Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and in the judgment of the learned First Court, direction was issued to the Authority to promote the writ petitioner in the IDA Pay Scale w.e.f. 1st October, 2004 under the Non-Executive Promotion Policy and not to give effect to the order by which the promotion given from 1st October, 2004 has been shifted to 3rd October, 2008. There was further direction for considering the case of the writ petitioner for GPF Contribution, which was erroneously converted by the respondents-Authority into EPF Contribution. 6. As per the office order dated 12th July, 2000 the appellant had earlier rejected such plea. On 31st October, 2008 under Notification bearing No. S.O. 2580(E) the Central Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 had directed application of the said Act to different organizations including BSNL. In such circumstances and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 the respondent-writ petitioner ought to have had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal first before invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, has argued that this point was never raised before the learned First Court as well as in the memorandum of appeal. Moreover, the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having been preserved in the said judgment, this Court could always consider the appeal. 8. We are, however, of the view that if we do so, we shall commit jurisdictional error as it will go to the very root of the matter. Moreover, the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having been preserved in the said judgment, this Court could always consider the appeal. 8. We are, however, of the view that if we do so, we shall commit jurisdictional error as it will go to the very root of the matter. At the time the judgment was delivered by the learned First Court, the appellant BSNL was within fold of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The judgment under appeal cannot be sustained for this reason. We set aside the judgment of the learned First Court but reserve the liberty of the respondent-writ petitioner to apply before the Central Administrative Tribunal for the same set of reliefs. 9. This appeal shall stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost. Appeal disposed of.