A SHIHABUDEEN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order under challenge is one issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi Bench holding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to settle claims made by army personnel against the Army Group Insurance Fund (AGIF). The petitioner after serving army as a Junior Commissioned Officer got released after he sustained injury in an army operation. Though he was granted regular pension, he was declined war injury pension and disability benefit under the AGIF. Therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court for relief against the Armed Forces as well as against the AGIF. On formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), the WP(C) was transferred to the AFT, Kochi Bench which vides Ext. P3 order allowed the claim of the petitioner on both accounts. In other words, he was declared to be eligible to get pension reckoning war injury as well as insurance benefit for the injury suffered by him, from the AGIF. It so happened that in the proceedings before the AFT, AGIF though was a party was not separately represented by counsel because the Central Government Standing Counsel took notice and defended the matter without instructions from the AGIF. Therefore, there was no occasion for the AGIF to raise objection against the petitioner's claim on merit. The AFT on finding the petitioner's eligibility for war injury pension held that for the very same reason the petitioner is entitled to insurance benefit as well.

(2.) However, after the AFT decided the case in favour of the petitioner, the AGIF filed a review petition before AFT contending that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass orders against the AGIF because it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, and the same does not come under the Army Act. The AGIF also relied on the findings of the Principal Bench of the AFT, New Delhi, which also held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any claim against the AGIF. The AFT, Kochi Bench, following the decision of the Principal Bench, allowed the review petition by Ext. P4 order recalling the earlier order issued in favour of the petitioner, namely Ext. P3, and declared that it has no jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's claim against the AGIF. It is against this order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this OP(AFT).

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the AGIF and also the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the remaining respondents.