2023 Supreme(Ker) 683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ.
Thankamma K. – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 22663 OF 2023
Decided On : 27-09-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ratheesh B. Gyothish Chandran Sethumadhavan D. Sreenath S.
For the Respondent: Sri.Suvin R. Menon, for DSG
Point of Law: Section 14(2) of Act, which reads jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matters.
Headnote:
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Section 3(o), 14, (2) - Army Act, 1950 - Navy Act, 1957 - Air Force Act, 1950 - Discharged from service - Not granted disability pension - Writ petition is filed challenging order of Armed Forces Tribunal – Tribunal has no power or jurisdiction to adjudicate upon reliefs claimed - Para 7.
Finding of the Court :
Husband of petitioner was discharged from service in year 1946 - Service matters are confined in relation to persons subject to Army Act, 1950 - Reliefs sought for in original petition do not fall under “service matters” as defined under Section 3(o) of Act - Having regard to expression of definition in Section 3(o) of Act and jurisdiction of Tribunal under Section 14 of Act, Court is of view that Tribunal has no power or jurisdiction to adjudicate upon reliefs claimed – Court do not find any infirmity or illegality in impugned order passed by Tribunal and hence, decline interference.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.
The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi (for short, “the Tribunal”) dated 03.03.2023.
2. The petitioner, the applicant in OA No.214 of 2019, is the widow of late Sepoy V.K.Krishnan Nair, who was a World War participant. The petitioner also filed MA No.296 of 2019 in OA No.214 of 2019 before the Tribunal to condone the delay of more than 29 years from the date of death of the petitioner's husband till the date of filing the original application, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order.
3. The petitioner's husband enrolled in the Army on 05.07.1941 and was discharged from service on 04.12.1946, who expired on 29.08.1989. In recognition of the war service and the service abroad, the petitioner's husband was awarded 1939-45 Star, Burma star and war medal. At the time of discharge, he was disabled due to primary hypertension and Ischemic Heart Disease and was not granted service pension due to non completion of 15 years of service. He was also not granted disability pension as he was released on demobilization. Challenging this, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for redressal of her grievance. The Tribunal considered the matter in detail and dismissed the original application as well as the application for condoning the delay in filing the original application, as not maintainable, citing that the relief sought for in the original application does not fall under “service matters” as defined under Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (for short, “the Act”). Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General.
5. The issue involved in this case is whether the reliefs sought for in the original application for pensionary benefits to the dependent of the deceased retired Army Personnel, who was discharged from Army Service in 1946, would fall under “service matters” as defined under Section 3(o) of the Act in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 14 of the Act. The original application has been filed under Section 14 of the Act and the reliefs sought for are under the provisions of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1940, Part II. As far as the power and jurisdiction of the Tribunal are concerned, it is relevant to see Section 14(2) of the Act, which reads thus;
“14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matters.- (1) xxxxxx
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by an order pertaining to any service matter may make an application to the Tribunal in such form and accompanied by such documents or other evidence and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.”
Section 3(o) of the Act defines “service matters”, which reads thus;
“3. Definitions.-xxxxx
(o) "service matters", in relation to the persons subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), mean all matters relating to the conditions of their service and shall include--
(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;
(ii) tenure, including commission, appointment, enrolment, probation, confirmation, seniority, training, promotion, reversion, premature retirement, superannuation, termination of service and penal deductions;
(iii) summary disposal and trials where the punishment of dismissal is awarded;
(iv) any other matter, whatsoever, but shall not include matters relating to
(i) orders issued under section 18 of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), sub section (1) of section 15 of the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and section 18 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950); and
(ii) transfers and postings including the change of place or unit on posting whether individually or as a part of unit, formation or ship in relation to the persons subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the