Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Baljinder Singh And Another on 18 March, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038757-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
2024:PHHC:038757-DB
(174) CWP-6491-2024
Date of Decision: 18.03.2024
Union of India & others --Petitioners
Versus
No.1084547-F, Ex. Naik Bijinder Singh & another --Respondents
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA.
Present:- Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA.J (Oral)
1. The relief claimed in the present petition filed under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure
P-1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, whereby
the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application No.3019 of 2018 and
granted benefit of rounding off w.e.f. 01.11.2001 to respondent no.1 without
restricting the arrears.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy
this Court as to why no appeal was filed against the order in time whereas
there is a limitation provided under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act for
filing an appeal within 30 days of passing of the order. Although, Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in its judgement in Union of India & others Vs.
Parashotam Dass, 2023(3) SLR 1 : 2023 INSC 265 has observed as under:-
"28. We can say with some experience of handling
these matters in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226,
prior to the creation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, that there
used to be a large number of pension matters. Persons who had
served in the Armed Forces were left at bay at the stage of
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038757-DB
pension. This jurisdiction is also vested with the Armed Forces
Tribunal. It would be difficult to say that there would be a
larger public interest involved in a pension matter, but
then, for that concerned person, it is of great importance. To
deny the High Court to correct any error which the Armed
Forces Tribunal may fall into, even in exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226, would be against the constitutional scheme.
The first independent judicial scrutiny is only by the Armed
Forces Tribunal. To say that in some matters, a judicial
scrutiny would amount to a second appeal, would not be the
correct way to look at it. What should be kept in mind is that in
administrative jurisprudence, at least two independent judicial
scrutinies should not be denied, in our view. A High Court
Judge has immense experience. In any exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226, the High Courts are quite conscious of the
scope and nature of jurisdiction, which in turn would depend
on the nature of the matter.
29. We believe that there is no necessity to carve
out certain cases from the scope of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution, as was suggested by the
learned Additional Solicitor General. It was enunciated in the
Constitution Bench judgment in S.N. Mukherjee (supra) case
that even in respect of courts-martial, the High Court could
grant appropriate relief in a certain scenario as envisaged
therein, i.e., "if the said proceedings have resulted in denial of
the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution or if the said proceedings suffer from a
jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of
the record."
3. We note that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 provided for
filing of an appeal in terms of Section 30 of the Act. The present petitioners
could have filed an appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court as they have stated
that in some other cases they have already filed appeals before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court i.e. Civil Appeal Diary No(s) 21811 of 2018 titled Union of
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038757-DB
India through its Secretary and others Vs. SGT Girish Kumar, which is
pending for disposal. Thus, the proceedings initiated by the petitioners by
filing the present writ petition are found to be without basis. In cases where
the matters are already pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the filing
of the present petition on the same issue in the High Court would be an
abuse of the process of law and would not be maintainable.
4. From the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the present
case is not where there has been any denial of fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 13 of the Constitution of India nor the proceedings
initiated and decided by the Armed Forces Tribunal suffer from
jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of it.
5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed.
6. All pending civil misc. applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
18.03.2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
lucky JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
