Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.S.Kulkarni, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Anjan Kumar Sinha - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9407 of 2023
Decided On : 28-07-2023
JURISDICTION - ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL - ARTICLES 226, 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007, SECTIONS 3(o), 14 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in relation to service matters of armed forces personnel. It highlighted that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 defines 'service matters' and establishes that the CAT lacks jurisdiction over matters concerning members of the armed forces, particularly when the individual is on deputation. The court interpreted the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, emphasizing that the petitioner’s premature repatriation fell under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal, not the CAT, influencing the decision to dismiss the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an officer of the Indian Army, was appointed as Registrar on deputation to the Armed Forces Tribunal. He was later prematurely repatriated to his parent cadre due to administrative exigencies. The petitioner challenged this repatriation order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his application on jurisdictional grounds, stating that the matter should be addressed by the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Central Administrative Tribunal correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, as the petitioner, being a member of the armed forces, was governed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, affirming that the petitioner’s grievances regarding his repatriation were service matters that fell under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Issues: Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application regarding his premature repatriation from the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of 'service matters' under Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 includes matters related to the conditions of service for armed forces personnel, and that the petitioner’s case, being related to his employment and repatriation, fell within this definition. The court emphasized that the appointment on deputation did not alter the petitioner’s status as a member of the armed forces.
Final Decision: The petition was summarily rejected, affirming the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of the original application due to lack of jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
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 19 th 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 :-
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 dtd. 19/10/2020 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 7/3/2022, 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 17 th June 2010. The relevant paragraph of the said order appointing the petitioner pertaining to premature repatriation reads thus : -
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 6 th May 2022. It appears that by an order dtd. 10/5/2023, 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 dtd. 10/5/2023 came to be issued which reads thus : -
Reference this office letter No.7(69)/2020/AFT/PB/ Admin-II dtd. 8/4/2022.
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. 06 th May, 2022 is to be prematurely repatriated on Administrative Exigencies ground to his parent office i.e. EMAE, HQ, MG and 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 Memorandum dtd. 17/6/2
A deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation and can be repatriated by following due procedures as per the DOPT guidelines.
The Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over grievances related to combatised personnel within the armed forces, distinguishing them from civilian staff.
The court ruled that repatriation during ongoing litigation violates interim orders, necessitating reinstatement.
Service Law - Post of Presenting Officer – Sought to Direct respondent to continue petitioner on deputation till expiry of this remaining tenure as extended by the Competent Authority with all conseq....
High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to review Tribunal's decisions from Principal Bench in New Delhi, affirming jurisdictional rules established by Supreme Court.
Premature repatriation of a deputationist must comply with natural justice principles and procedural norms, and authority must be competent as per relevant statutes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
