Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"3. It is not in dispute that the applicant belongs to combatized cadre of Sashastra Seema Bal and, therefore, governed by the provisions of Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 (in short, SSB Act, 2007) and Rules, 2009 framed under the aforesaid Act. Section 3 of the SSB Act, 2007 provides that officers and subordinate officers and under officers and other persons enrolled under the Act shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the Rules. Rule 8 mentions the ranks and categories of the officers and members of the force. A perusal thereof, would show that the Assistant Commandant is at Serial No.(viii) of the list of officers. Section 4 of SSB Act, 2007 provides that there shall be an armed force of the Union called the Sashastra Seema Bal for ensuring the security of the borders of India and performing such other duties as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government. Section 2 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 excludes members of the naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union. Section 156 of SSB Act, 2007 provides that the existing SSB shall be deemed to be the force constituted under the Act.
4. From a conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Section 3 and Section 156 of SSB Act, 2007 and Rule 8 framed under the aforesaid Act, it would be evident that the applicant is the member of Sashastra Seema Bal, an armed force under the Union of India. Therefore, the applicant being member of the combatized cadre of SSB, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this Application under Section 19 of the Tribunals Act, 1985. It is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, it would be open to the applicant to seek remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law. No order as to costs."

13. After going through the Order/Judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sujan Singh (supra), we find that though the Order/Judgment of the Tribunal is precise one, however, it is evident that while passing the same, the Tribunal had not only considered its common Order/Judgment dated 13.9.2013 passed in two OAs referred to in para 2 of its Order/Judgment but had also considered various rules, including the SSB Recruitment Rules 2004 and the Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. From paras 3 and 4 thereof, quoted hereinabove, it is further evident that the Tribunal while passing the Order has considered the provisions of SSB Act, 2007 and provisions of Sections 2 and 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 etc. and thereafter only had come to the conclusion that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the service matter of the member of SSB, an armed force under the Union of India, and the member of combatised cadre of the SSB, and held that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the said OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. We accordingly do not find force in the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that the Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in Sujan Singh's case (supra) is in per incuriam. Similarly, in the case of Manish Bachhil (supra), this Tribunal had considered the issue of jurisdiction of this Tribunal in the matter of members of combatised cadre of the SSB and according we do not accept that the said Order/Judgment is in per incuriam.