Annie Ninu K.J vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 8601 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.3489 OF 2021(I)

PETITIONER:-
                ANNIE NINU K.J.
                AGED 27 YEARS
                W/O.LATE CPL VINIL P.PATHROSE,
                KANDATHIPARAMB,
                KUMARAPURAM, EZHUPUNNA,
                CHERTHALA,
                ALAPPUZHA, KERALA - 688 537.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN
                SRI.V.S.NOWSHAD
                SMT.BINU K.B.
                SMT.T.M.RESHMY
                SMT.SITHARA.S

RESPONDENTS:-

      1         UNION OF INDIA
                REPRESENTED BY DEFENCE SECRETARY,
                MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 101-A,
                SOUTH BLOCK,
                NEW DELHI - 110 011.

      2         THE SENIOR AIR AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF OFFICER
                HQ MAINTENANCE COMMAND,
                INDIAN AIR FORCE,
                VAYU SENA NAGAR, NAGAPUR - 440 007.

      3         THE COMMANDING OFFICER
                29 EQUIPMENT DEPOT,
                AIR FORCE STATION, CHAKARI, KANPUR - 208 008.

      4         THE DIRECTORATE OF VETERANS
                AIR HEADQUARTERS,
                SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI - 110 010.

                R1-4 BY SMT.MAHESWARY.G., CGC

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-03-
2021, THE COURT ON 22-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.3489/2021
                                       2


                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of March 2021

1. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

"Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P4, P5 and P6 at the earliest."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

CGC appearing for the respondents.

3. I notice that the Registry had raised an objection that the

petitioner has to approach the AFT, since the claim is with

regard to pensionary benefits on the death of an employee of

the Indian Air Force. The learned Central Government Counsel

has raised a preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would, however,

contend that the prayer in the writ petition is only for

consideration of Exhibit P4 request made by the petitioner. I

notice that the specific prayer in Exhibit P4 is that the W.P.(C).No.3489/2021

petitioner, being the wife of the deceased employee, is entitled

to half share of the properties and assets ,including the

terminal benefits of the deceased husband and that she has

not relinquished the said right. The petitioner, therefore

claims the release of her share in the terminal benefits to her.

5. The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 specifically provides for

the adjudication of all service disputes with regard to the

employees of the Armed Forces before such Tribunal. Section

3(o)(i) of the Act provides as follows:-

"(o) "service matters", in relation to the persons subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), mean all matters relating to the conditions of their service and shall include-

(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;"

Section 14(1) of the Act reads as follows:-

14 Jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matters.-(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, 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 article 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to all service matters."

W.P.(C).No.3489/2021

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Armed

Forces Tribunal is not conducting physical sittings in Kochi.

The learned CGC submits that online filings are permitted in

the Tribunal and in case of urgent cases, the Tribunal is

considering such matters in its online hearings as well. It is

contended that it is for the petitioner to initially move the

Tribunal and the writ petition which is filed without making

any effort to move the Tribunal which has jurisdiction to

consider a matter of this nature is not maintainable.

7. However, in view of the specific wording of Section 14 of the

Act since the jurisdiction of this Court is not ousted and in the

nature of the directions being sought for, I am of the opinion

that in the interests of justice, the petitioners claim can be

directed to be considered. There will be a direction to the

respondents to take up, consider and pass orders in the

representation submitted by the petitioner with notice to the

petitioner as well as any other claimants to the terminal

benefits due to her husband. Appropriate orders shall be

passed within a period of three months from the date of W.P.(C).No.3489/2021

receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner

through any appropriate means including video conferencing.

sd/-

Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj W.P.(C).No.3489/2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/11/2020 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/1/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM APPLICATION DATED 18/1/2021 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF UNDERTAKING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

True copy

PS to Judge