Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try suits challenging the discharge of soldiers from service, as such matters are impliedly barred by public policy.

Harnam Singh, J.

1. In Civil Suit No. 81 of 1950 Shri Ram Chand sought declaration to the effect that his discharge from service was wrongful, void and inoperative and , that he remained a member of the Defence Service on the date of the institution of the suit.

2. Shortly put, the facts giving rise to Civil Suit No. 81 of 1950 are these: On 2-1-1943, by letter, Ex. D. 2, Subhedar Ram Chand complaining that his promotion had been stopped without sufficient cause applied that he should be discharged from, service "at his own request on transfer to pension establishment". By order passed on 30-4-1943, Ex. P.2, the Director of Ordnance Services, Army Headquarters, discharged Subhedar Rain Chand from service under Rule. 13B, Item No. 1(i)(b) made under Section 113 of the Indian Army Act, 1911 , hereinafter referred to as the Act. Pursuant to that order Subhedar Ram Chand relinquished charge. That discharge was found to be illegal for the Director of Ordnance Services, Army Headquarters, was not the competent authority to authorise the discharge of Subhedar Ram Chand under Rule 13B, Item No. 1(i)(b). On 2-3-1944 Subhedar Ram Chand was discharged from service under Rule 13B, Item No. 1(iii)(b) in the interest of service by the G. O. C.-in-Chief, Southern Command. In discharging Subhedar Ram Chand, the G. O. C.-in-Chief ordered that Subhedar Ram Chand was entitled to receive pay from the date of his illegal discharge by the Director of Ordnance Services to 2-3-1944 though no duty was performed by him during that period. On 26-4-1948 Subhedar Ram Chand memorialised the Central Government to alter the cause of his discharge from that stated by the G. O. C.-in-Chief, Southern Command, to one "at his own request on transfer to the pension establishment". That request was granted by the Central Government and communicated to the plaintiff by letter dated 5-2-1949 Ex. P. 4.

3. Plainly, Subhedar Ram Chand being Viceroys Commissioned Officer could be discharged from! service "at his own request on transfer to pension establishment" by the Officer-Commanding the corps to which he belonged or by any higher authority. That being the position of matters, the G. O. C.-in-Chief, Southern Command, was competent authority to authorise the discharge of Subhedar Ram Chand within rule 13B,

4. In Civil Suit No. 81 of 1950 Subhedar Ram Chand maintained that the orders passed by the Director of Ordnance Services, Army Headquarters, the G. O. C-in-Chief, Southern Command, and the Central Government were void, illegal and inoperative.

5. On the pleadings of the parties the Court fixed the following issues:

(1) Is the order of discharge of the plaintiff from service invalid, illegal, ultra vires, void and ineffective?

(2) Is the suit not maintainable in the present form?

(3) Is the plaintiff estopped to sue by his conduct?

(4) Is the suit not properly valued for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee?

(5) Is the defendant entitled to special costs under Section 35-A, Civil P. C.?

(6) Whether the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction in the matter?

(7) Relief.

In deciding Civil Suit No. 81 of 1950 the Sub-Judge found:

(a) that the plaintiff was validly discharged from service "at his own request on transfer to pension establishment";

(b) that the suit was maintainable in the form in which it was laid;

(c) that the plaintiff was estopped by his conduct from suing;

(d) that the suit was properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction;

(e) that special costs under Section 35-A, Civil P. C. could not be allowed on the facts of the case; and

(f) that the Civil Courts possessed jurisdiction to try the suit.

6. Finding that the plaintiff was validly discharged from service "at his own request on transfer to pension establishment" and that he was estopped by his conduct from suing, the Sub-Judge dismissed the suit with costs.

7. From the decree passed in Civil Suit No.. 81 of 1950 the plaintiff appealed under Section 96, Civil P. C. in the Court of the