Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Lt. Col. Anjan Kumar Sinha, an officer in the Indian Army, applied for and was selected for the post of Registrar at the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai, on deputation for three years. His appointment was subject to the terms and conditions of the DOPT Office Memorandum dated 17th June 2010, which included a clause for premature repatriation in case of unsatisfactory performance or administrative exigencies. On 10th May 2023, the competent authority ordered his premature repatriation to his parent office on administrative exigencies. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an Original Application (O.A. No.330 of 2023) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench, challenging the repatriation order. The CAT dismissed the application on 19th June 2023, holding that it lacked jurisdiction as the petitioner, being an armed forces personnel, should have approached the Armed Forces Tribunal. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the issue of jurisdiction and found that the CAT's decision was correct. The court noted that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, provides for a separate tribunal to adjudicate service matters of armed forces personnel, and the CAT's jurisdiction is excluded in such matters. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT's order and directing the petitioner to seek redress before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, or alternatively before the Ministry of Defence.
Headnote
A) Jurisdiction - Central Administrative Tribunal - Armed Forces Tribunal - Service Matters - Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, Section 2(1)(a) - The Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over service matters of armed forces personnel, including those on deputation to the Armed Forces Tribunal, as such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. (Paras 2-3)
B) Deputation - Premature Repatriation - Administrative Exigencies - DOPT OM dated 17.06.2010 - The petitioner, an Army officer on deputation as Registrar of the Armed Forces Tribunal, was prematurely repatriated to his parent cadre on administrative exigencies. The court held that the CAT correctly declined jurisdiction as the petitioner's service conditions are governed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application concerning premature repatriation of an Army officer serving on deputation with the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19th June 2023, which held that the CAT lacked jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to seek redress before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, or alternatively before the Ministry of Defence.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal
- Armed Forces Tribunal jurisdiction
- Premature repatriation of deputationist
- Service matters of armed forces personnel
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (07) 55
Writ Petition No.9407 of 2023
G. S. Kulkarni, Jitendra Jain
Mr.Vicky Nagrani for Petitioner, Ms.Neeta V. Masurkar for Respondents
Lt.Col. Anjan Kumar Sinha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's Original Application for lack of jurisdiction.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 19th June 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, and to have his Original Application restored or heard on merits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was prematurely repatriated from his deputation post as Registrar of the Armed Forces Tribunal to his parent cadre in the Indian Army, and he challenged the repatriation order before the CAT, which dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, by order dated 19th June 2023 in O.A. No.330 of 2023, dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction, directing him to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Issues
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application concerning premature repatriation of an Army officer serving on deputation with the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the CAT had jurisdiction as the matter pertained to a deputation post under the Armed Forces Tribunal, which is a tribunal under the Central Government.
The respondents contended that the petitioner, being an armed forces personnel, his service matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
Ratio Decidendi
The Central Administrative Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over service matters of armed forces personnel, including those on deputation to the Armed Forces Tribunal, as such matters are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
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.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed O.A. No.330 of 2023 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, challenging his premature repatriation order dated 10th May 2023. The CAT dismissed the O.A. on 19th June 2023 for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.9407 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed on 28th July 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: Section 2(1)(a)
