JUDGMENT :

G.S.Kulkarni, J.

Not on board. Taken on board on an application being moved on behalf of the petitioner.

2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 19th June 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in O.A. No.330 of 2023 whereby his Original Application has been dismissed on the ground that the Central Administrative Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the original application, leaving him to seek redressal of his grievances, before the Armed Forces Tribunal. The operative part of the impugned order reads thus :-

“(iii) In view of the above analysis of the issue, we conclude that on the grievance of the applicant related to his premature repatriation, his O.A. cannot be entertained by this Tribunal because of want of jurisdiction and therefore, it is dismissed. He may seek redress of his grievance with the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi or alternatively with the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi.”

3. The relevant facts are required to be noted. The petitioner was appointed in the services of the Indian Army. In response to the office circular dated 19th October 2020 issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi, he made an application for appointment to the post of Registrar with Armed Forces Tribunal, on deputation.

4. On 7th March 2022, the Armed Forces Tribunal accepted the application of the petitioner, informing him that he was selected for appointment to the post of Registrar, on deputation, for a period of three years. The appointment was subject to the terms and conditions as set out in DOPT Office Memoramdam dated 17th June 2010. The relevant paragraph of the said order appointing the petitioner pertaining to premature repatriation reads thus : -

“5. The official will be prematurely repatriated to his parent cadre as per DoP&T OM No.6/8/2009-Estt. (Pay II) dated 17th June 2010 as amended from time to time in case his performance is not found satisfactory during the deputation period in Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai or Administrative Exigencies in public interest.”

5. The petitioner accepted such appointment on deputation, by accepting the terms and conditions as set out in the Office Memorandum, and communicated his acceptance by his letter dated 6th May 2022. It appears that by an order dated 10th May 2023, the competent authority thereafter took a decision to prematurely repatriate the petitioner on administrative exigencies, to his parent office i.e. EMAE, HQ. MG & G Area. To this effect, the order dated 10th May 2023 came to be issued which reads thus : -

“OFFICE ORDER

Reference this office letter No.7(69)/2020/AFT/PB/ Admin-II dated 08th April, 2022.

2. The Competent Authority is pleased to direct that IC-57396N Lt Col Anjan Kumar Sinha, an officer of Indian Army presently working in Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai as Registrar on deputation basis w.e.f. 06th May, 2022 is to be prematurely repatriated on Administrative Exigencies ground to his parent office i.e. EMAE, HQ, MG & G Area. Therefore, the officer is hereby relieved of his duties with immediate effect to report to his parent office.

3. Service Book of the officer during deputation period has been maintained by the parent office of the officer.”

6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Mumbai by the Original Application in question, inter alia praying that the repatriation order be quashed and set aside. However, the Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s application accepting the respondent’s objection that the Central Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction, as the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly point out that in terms of the Office Memoran