The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and extraordinary, and should not be exercised when an alternative remedy is available.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27th August, 2021 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (RB), Lucknow in Original Application No.475 of 2017. It is further prayed in the present writ petition to issue direction commanding the respondent authorities to pay interest at the rate of 18 % per annum on the arrears of pension and other retiral dues w.e.f. 7th August, 1991 to the date of actual payment of the aforesaid arrears of pension and other retiral dues.

2. The brief facts of the case arising in the present writ petition are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps of Indian Army on 6th August, 1971 and was discharged from service on 20th April, 1997, being deserter. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16478 of 2001 before this Court. Upon creation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the same was transferred and renumbered as Transfer Application No.1469 of 2010. The aforesaid Transfer Application was allowed by the order dated st April, 2016 to the extent that the respondents were directed to pay pension and all other retiral benefits to the petitioner, considering him to be in service upto 6th August, 1991 within a period of three months. When the respondents did not comply with the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred Execution Application No.173 of 2016. In execution proceedings on 29th May, 2017, the authorities concerned handed over the Pension Payment Order bearing No.5001122017 dated 28th June, 2017 and the petitioner was paid pension w.e.f. 28th June, 2017. Thereafter, the respondent authorities have paid all the retiral dues of the petitioner w.e.f. 7th August, 1991 in terms of PPO dated 26th May, 2017.

3. The petitioner thereafter, preferred Original Application No.475 of 2017 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow with the following prayers:-

“i. This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order, rule or direction directing the respondents authorities specially the respondent no.4 to pay interest @ 18% per annum on account of delayed payment of pension other retiral dues such as Gratuity, G.P.F., Group Insurance, Commutation of pension, Leave encashment and arrears of pension etc. w.e.f. 08.11.1991 to the date of actual payment of the aforesaid retiral dues.

ii. This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to pass such other and/or further orders as deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of this case.

iii. Award cost to the applicant.”

4. The above mentioned original application was contested by the respondents before the Tribunal below and the Tribunal below by impugned judgment dated 27th August, 2021 has dismissed the above mentioned original application of the petitioner.

5. It is the impugned order dated 27th August, 2021 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, that is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

6. Sri Naresh Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act No.55 of 2007”) and in view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. In this reference, Shri N.C.Tripathi has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs Major General Shri Kant Sharma and others, reported in 2015 (6) SCC 773 and judgment dated 1st November, 2021 passed by this Court in Writ-A No 15281 of 2021 – Ex-Hav Clerk (Stores) Ram Naresh Ram Vs Union of India and others to contend that the present writ petition is not liable to be entertained on the ground of alternative remedy of filing an appeal being a