Bombay High Court Upholds Jurisdiction of Armed Forces Tribunal in Premature Repatriation Case: "Appointment on Deputation Does Not Alter Basic Employment."

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal in a case involving the premature repatriation of Lieutenant Colonel Anjan Kumar Sinha, who was serving as a Registrar on deputation with the Armed Forces Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. The Court, comprising Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Jitendra Jain, pronounced its decision on 28th July 2023.

The case revolved around the petitioner's challenge to an order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai, which had dismissed his Original Application (O.A. No. 330 of 2023) on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. The CAT suggested that the petitioner approach the Armed Forces Tribunal to seek redressal of his grievances.

Justice G. S. Kulkarni, speaking on behalf of the Bench, delivered the judgment and emphasized that the petitioner's appointment as a Registrar with the Armed Forces Tribunal was on deputation, and it did not alter his basic employment as a member of the armed forces. The Court clarified that all conditions of service attached to the petitioner's armed forces employment continued to apply even during the deputation.

In the oral judgment, Justice G. S. Kulkarni stated, "Any appointment on deputation would not bring about a consequences of any extinguishment of the basic employment of the petitioner, which was with the Indian Army. The petitioner's employment with the armed forces did not come to an end the moment he accepted appointment on deputation, and the armed forces tribunal remained his employer."

Furthermore, the Court referred to the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, particularly Section 3(o), which defines "service matters" falling within the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis to interpret the provision and concluded that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of "service matters."

Regarding the petitioner's reliance on previous cases to support his contention on jurisdiction, Justice G. S. Kulkarni explained, "We wonder as to how these decisions would assist the petitioner in the present facts," referring to Lieutenant Colonel Vijaynath Jha Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 303 and Lt. Co. R.K. Purohit Vs. Union of India in O.A. 2701/2009.

Bombay High Court summarily rejected the writ petition, ruling that the Central Administrative Tribunal rightly lacked jurisdiction in this matter. The petitioner's challenge to the order of premature repatriation was found to fall under the purview of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

Date of Decision: 28th July 2023

Lt. Col. Anjan Kumar Sinha vs Union of India & Ors  

• Lawyer E- News Android Mobile App
• Latest Legal News

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Lt_Col_Anjan_Kumar_Sinha_vs_Union_Of_India_Thru_The_Secretary_on_28_July_2023_BombHC.pdf"]