Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Lt Col Anjan Kumar Sinha vs Armed Force Tribunal on 19 June, 2023
j OA.330/2025 Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. O.A.330/2023 Dated this Monday the 19° day of June, 2025. Coram : Dr.Bhagwan Sahai, Member (Administrative) Mrs.Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (Judicial). Lt. Col Anjan Kumar Sinha, Working as Registrar, Armed Forees Tribunal, Mumbai Residing at : Bhim B-21, NOFRA, Navy Nagar, Colaba, Mumbai -- AQ6 005. .. Applicant. ( By Advocate Shri VA. Nagrani ). Versus i. Union of India, through The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi 110 066. 2. The Secretary, DoPT, Dept. of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel PG & Pension, North Block, New Delhi ~ 110 001. 3, The Chairperson, Armed Force Tribunal, Principal Bench, West Block VIT, R.K. Puram, Sector 1, New Delhi ~ 110 006. 4, The Dy. Director, Armed Force Tribunal, 2 OA.330/2023 Principal Bench, West Block VII, RK. Purarn, Sector 1, New Delhi ~ 110 006. Cy The Registrar (/C), Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai, MTNL Building, Malabar Hill, Mumbai -- 400 006. . Respondents. ( By Advocates Shri R.R. Shetty and Rishi Ashok ). Order reserved on : 05.06.2023 Order pronounced on : 19.06.2023. ORDER
Per : Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member (A).
LUCol Anjan Kumar Sinha working as Registrar in Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai has filed this OA. on 01.06.2023 seeking setting aside of orders dated 12.05.2023 and 19.05.2023 with consequential benefits and declaration that his premature repatriation is not on administrative exigency and he is entitled to continue for a tenure of 3 years, ete. Zs On 05.06.2023, Shri VA. Nagrani appeared for the applicant and Shri R.R, Shetty along with Shri Rishi Ashok appeared for the respondents. After Shri Nagrani made initial subrnissions about premature repatriation of the applicant from Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai, Shri Shetty raised objections about jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain the O.A. filed by the OA,330/2023 tae applicant. Both of them were heard on the issue of jurisdiction and then it was reserved for orders on 05.06.2023.
3. The applicant's counsel has pointed out that as per letter dated 03.03.2022 from Ministry of Defence (AFT Cell} to Princinal Registrar, AFT, Principal Bench, R.R. Puram, New Delhi, the Ministry had approved selection of the present applicant, Lt. Col Anjan Kumar Sinha, to the post of Registrar at Mumbai as recommended by selection committee in its meeting held on 06.10.2021. Thereafter as per letter of APT, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 07.03.2022 addressed to SO Deputation, Military Secretary's Branch, Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army), New Delhi on subject of reornitment to the post of Registrar in AFT, Regional Bench, Mumbai on deputation basis, it was informed that Lt. Col A.K. Sinha had been selected for appointment on deputation basis initially for 3 years. His deputation was to be governed by DoPT OM dated 17.06.2010 as amended from time to time.
it was further mentioned in Para 5 of the letter of 07.03 2022 that LUCol AK. Sinha wonld be prematurely repatriated to his parent cadre as per terms in DoPT OM dated 17.06.2010 as 4 OA330/2023 amended from time to time in case his performance is not found satisiactory during the deputation period in Armed Foroes Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai or administrative exigencies in public interest. Thus the present applicant has been working with Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai from 06.05.2022.
4, The grievance of the applicant is with reference to order dated 12.05.2023 issued by Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, BK. Puram, New Delhi stating that Lt. Col. Anjan Kumar Sinha has already been repatriated to his parent office with effect from 10.05.2023, and competent authority has directed Shri VJ. Kale, Dy. Registrar, Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai to look after responsibility of Registrar of that Bench.
His further grievance is against office order dated 19.05,2023 issued by Deputy Director (D), Armed Force Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi stating that Competent Authority was pleased to direct that Lt. Col. Anjan Kumar Sinha, an officer of Indian Army working in Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai as Registrar on deputation basis from 06.05.2022 is to be prematurely repatriated to his parent office ie. EMAE, HO, MG & G Area in view of the changed circumstances and on the ground of 5 OA33¥2023 administrative exigencies. Therefore, the applicant was relieved of his duties with immediate effect to report to his parent office. That office order of 19,05,2023 further mentioned in Para 2 that the orders dated 10.05.2023 Mad aS] no Ch eve ow] ae Fs bo a2 hha 3 ps3) oe
s) es, a co pared on ah oA pa im bo i bets, rt res es) present applicant are superseded, and that the letter dated 12.03.2025 issued to the applicant stood withdrawn and was to be treated as cancelled. Thus the order of 19.05.2023 informed that the order of 12.05.2023 extending the tenure of the applicant by 90 days on his request was also withdrawn and the applicant stood repatriated to report to his parent office.
8, The applicant's counsel Shri Nagrani has contended that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A. in view of provisions of DoPT OM dated 17.06.2010 since deputation of the applicant is subject to these provisions. As per Para 8.1 of that OM, the period of deputation/foreign service shall be as per the Recruitment Rules of the ex-cadre post or 3 years in case no tenure regulations exist for the ex-cadre past. Since the appointment of the applicant was made for 3 years, for premature repatriation advance notice of atleast 3 months was necessary to be given to him and the Army. But in this case such advance notice of 3 months was not 6 OA.336/2023 given and the applicant has been relieved.
6. Since the appointment of the applicant was made for 3 years for premature reversion of a deputationist to a parent cadre ag provided under Para 9, advance notice of atleast three months to the lending Ministry or Department of the employee concerned is necessary. However, as per order dated 10.05.2023 issued by the Armed Forced Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Dethi, the applicant was relieved with immediate effect without complying with the requirement of Para 9 of the DoPT OM. When the applicant represented for providing prior notice of three months, as per office order dated 12.05.2 23, his request was accepted and it was directed that he would report to his parent office from 07.08.2023 AN instead 10,03,.2023. However, subsequently by Principal Bench order dated 19.05.2023, the letter of 12.03.2023 was withdrawn and treated as cancelled and the applicant was relieved from his duty with immediate effect, T herefore, the applicant contends that without providing advance notice/intimation to him and his parent organization as per Para 9 of DoPT OM dated 17.06.2010, the AFT, Principal Bench by order dated 19.03.2023 has relieved him with immediate effect to report back to his parent office, Therefore, in 7 OA330/2023 view of the terms and conditions of the applicant's deputation being governed by provisions of the DoPT OM = dated 17.06.2010, jurisdiction of this Tribunal is there for entertaining and deciding the ? The respondents' counsel Shri Shetty has pointed out provisions of the Army Act, 1950 are applicable to the applicant. As provided under Section 2(2) every person subject to this Act under clauses (a) to 2(g) of Sub-section (1) shall remain so subject until duly retired, discharged, released, removed, dismissed or cashiered from service. Shri Shetty has contended that the present applicant LtCol Anjan Kumar Sinha is an officer of Indian Army and, therefore, he is subject to provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and till his retirement from service he is subject to those provisions of the Army Act, 1950, Section 2())(a) of the Army Act, 1950 has mentioned officers, junior commissioned officers and warrant officer of the Indian Army; 2(1}(b) has mentioned persons enrolled under this Act. Therefore, the respondents are contending that on grievance of the applicant, jurisdiction does not lies with this Tribunal and he can seek redress of his grievance only before the Armed Forces Tribunal, 8 QA330/2023 Principal Bench, New Delhi.
8. During hearing of the case on 05.06.2023 the applicant's counsel has also brought on record a letter from Department of Defence DCAFT Cell, Ministry of Defence, Government of India dated 02.06.2023 addressed to Principal Registrar, Armed Forces Tribunal (PB), R.K. Puram, New Delhi on the subject of his premature repatriation directing that order dated 10.05.2023 on the subject of premature repatriation of the present applicant may be treated as null and void. It was further informed that the appointment of Lt. Col Anjan Kumar Simha approved by the Ministry and conveyed vide letter dated 03.03.2022 and the Armed Forced Tribunal (PB) was advised that in case it wishes to prematurely repatriate an official serving in the Armed Forces Tribunal back to his/her parent cadre, it must request the Ministry with proper justification in this regard. Since the appointing authority of Group-A Officers in AFT is Hon'ble Raksha Mantri, it is not in the purview of AFT (PB) to prematurely repatriate any Group- A officer without prior consent of the Ministry. This letter was issued with approval of Hon'ble Raksha Mantri.
9 OA.330/20233. Now the issue for decision at this stage is whether under these circumstances of the case this Tribunal can entertain the application filed by the Lt. Col. Anjan Kumar Sinha. Shri Nagrani has contended that as per provisions of Section 14 af AT Act, 1984 all service matters concerning a member of all India service or those appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union are covered the jurisdiction of CAT. The applicant has been posted on deputation as Registrar of Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai, which is a civil post and, therefore, this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the present OLA.
However, the respondents have contended that the applicant is an officer of the Indian Army and, therefore, is governed by provisions of the Army Act, 1950. The organization which borrowed his service on deputation basis is the Armed Forces Tribunal only and the appointment of the applicant was made on deputation basis with the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai.
10. For taking a view on the present O.A., in addition to the provisions under the Army Act, 1980 enumerated above, we have also perused provisions under the AFT Act, 2007 and AFT (Practice) 19 OA330/2023 Rules, 2009, As per Section 2(1} of the AFT Act, 2007, provisions of that Act apply to all persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950, Section 14(1) of the AFT Act, 2007 related to Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal provides that save as otherwise expressly provided, the Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority, exercisable immediately before that day by all courts ( except the Supreme Court or a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in relation to all service As per Section 14(2) ~ subject to other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by an order pertaining to any service matter may make an application to the Tribunal in such form and accompanies by such documents or other evidence and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, As per Rule 146 (3) of those rules, classification of eases has been provided and under subjectwise classification of cases item no.8 pertains to deputation/repatriation/absorption in we li OA, 3360/2023 Govt/public sector etc. This means cases related to deputation and repatriation of Armed Forces members are covered under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
ocd:
ie the O.A. the applicant has also enclosed a copy of his coramunication dated 16.05.2023 addressed to Chairperson, AFT, PB, New Delhi in which he has made certain allegations against Shri Bhagat Singh, Dy. Director posted at Principal Bench of the APT and Shri Kale, Dy. Registrar, AFT, Regional Bench, Mumbai. He has also enclosed a copy of email dated 16.05.2023 sent to Shri D.K. Rai, <[email protected] alleging that he was threatened by Sr. PPS to Chairperson, AFT, through whatsapp call on 13, 05.2023 that he would face dire consequences. The veracity of these allegations also can be examined only by the AFT (PB), New Delhi.
12. The respondents have relied on an order passed by Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.367/2023 dated 06.03.2025 in case of Govindraju R.G. Vs. Union of India & Orders dated 16.03.2023, in which a view was taken that in relation to members of Armed Forces, including Sashastra Seema Bal, disputes of their personnel are outside jurisdiction of the C.A.T. [2 QA330/2023
13. After considering the contentions of the parties in this O.A. and provisions of the Army Act, 1950, AFT Act, 2007, AFT (Practice) Rules, 2009 and provisions of the AT Act, 1985, in our opinion the position is clear as follows:-
(i). The applicant is an officer of the Indian Army, he is governed by provisions of the Army Act, 1950. After approval of the Ministry of Defence he joined on deputation on the post of Registrar of Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai from 06.05.2022. When he is on deputation, he still continues to be an Army Officer and he is governed by provisions of the Army Act, 1950. Being on deputation on the post of Registrar, AFT, Regional Bench, Mumbai, he has not ceased to be an Army Officer. As provided under Rule 146 of AFT (Practice) Rules, 2009 on classification of Cases, entry nos is about deputation/repatriation/absorption in Govt/public sector. Therefore, relating to deputation and repatriation of the applicant, the jurisdiction lies with the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi and not with the C_.A.T. Therefore, for redressal of grievance against his premature repatriation by the order of the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, he should approach 13 OA 33G/2023 that Tribunal and the jurisdiction on it does not lies with the C.A.T. Gi). In addition to the above, as is clear from the letter of Ministry of Defence dated 02.06.2023 written to Principal Registrar, AFT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, that the applicant's deputation was approved by the Defence Ministry and conveyed vide letter dated 03.03.2022. Appointment of Group-A officers to the AFT is done with the approval of the Union Defence Minister and, therefore, the order of Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench dated 19.05.2023 for premature repatriation of present applicant has already been treated as null and void by the Defence Ministry. The Ministry has further directed the Registrar, AFT, Prmcipal Bench, New Delhi that in case it wishes to prematurely repatriate the applicant to the parent cadre, it must request the Ministry with a proper justification in this regard. Thus the applicant's grievance with respect to his premature repatriation by Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, by order of 10.05.2023 has already been redressed by the Ministry of Defence. Similarly the applicant can also seek redress against the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, order of a Defence, Government of India, New Delhi.
i4 OA,330/2023 GID. in view of the ahove analysis of the issue, we conclude that on the grievance of the applicant related to his premature repatriation, his OA. 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 Defhi.
(Mrs.HarVillder Kaur Oberoi) (Dr.Bhabwan Sahai) Member () Member (A), HL "a ' R DAT . Aw \ "