DARSHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter was taken up today, Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, learned ASGI raised an objection that this Bunch of the writ petitions is required to transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal (in brevity, the AFT) in view of section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. It is further submitted that a Circuit Bench of AFT has become operative in Jammu, and, therefore, by virtue of Section 34 of the aforesaid Act, 2007, the proceedings which are pending before this Court deserve to be transferred to the AFT. It is further submitted that petitioners in all the cases have alleged violation of either the provisions of the Army Act, Navy Act and the Air Force Act and since they have alleged violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Acts, the cases filed by them are triable under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act.

(2.) In support of her submissions, learned ASGI has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled "Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another v. Subhash Sharma etc., (2002) 4 SCC 145" and has submitted that in the aforesaid decision, the Full Bench decision rendered by this Court in the case of "Kuldip Khoda v. Masud Ahmad Choudhary and others" reported in 1994 SLJ 287 , by which the Full Bench of this Court has held that the provisions of Article 323-A of the Constitution of India do not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir has been considered and it has been held that the employees, retired personnel, their legal heirs, dependants and successors as well, are governed by the provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in brevity, the CAT) and have to take resort to the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act by filing an original application before the CAT.

(3.) Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, learned ASGI has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India and others v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and another, (2015) 6 SCC 773" and has submitted that the aforesaid decision has been referred for consideration before the Larger Bench for consideration of the question whether against an order passed by the AFT, an appeal would lie to the Supreme Court or the High Court can still exercise the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court has held that the decision rendered by it in the in the case of "Union of India and others v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and another" (supra) needs to be re-visited and no direction has been passed with regard to the pending cases or the observations made with regard to the appeal, which are required to be filed under Section 30 of the AFT Act.