O.A. No. 22 of 2010. Case: Capt. N. Gopalakrishnan (Retired) Vs Union of India (UOI) rep. by the Secretary, The Director (Pension/Policy) Government of India and Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions). Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 22 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan, Adv. |
| Judges | A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J. (J) and S. Pattabhiraman (A), Members |
| Issue | Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Sections 3, 14(1), 19, 30 and 31; Army Act, 1950 - Section 18; Navy Act,1957 - Section 15(1); Air Force Act, 1950 - Section 18; Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227, 323A and 323B |
| Judgement Date | July 22, 2010 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J. (Member (J)), (Regional Bench Chennai)
-
The petitioner has moved this application challenging the three orders of the second respondent vide orders No. 1(1)/2007-D (Pen/Policy) dated 20.5.2009, No. 1(1)/2007-D (Pen/Policy) dated 03.09.2009 and No. M.MODP/MNL/31/2009 dated 09.10.2009.
-
The Registry of Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai had returned the application stating that the application is not maintainable before this Tribunal, since it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Thereafter the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 5873 of 2010 before the Honourable High Court of Judicature, Madras. The Honourable High Court of Madras in its order dated 30.04.2010 has directed the petitioner to move the petition once again before this Tribunal holding that under Section 30 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, this Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Honourable High Court, Madras in its order has further observed that the communication made by the Registry of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai cannot be considered as judicial decision of the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed this application once again before this Tribunal.
-
We heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and considered her submissions. Learned Counsel in support of her contention relying on AIR 1997 SC 1125 (L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India) would contend that this Tribunal is effective substitute for the High Courts in discharging the power of judicial review like that of the power conferred on the Apex Court. The facts of the cited decision is that the appellant therein had challenged the administrative orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The relevant observation in the judgment of the Apex Court is as follows:
The Supreme Court in this landmark decision reached to various conclusions, as to jurisdictional powers of the Tribunals constituted under Article 323A, 323B of Constitution which are broadly summerised as below:
The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set up been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be...
To continue reading
Request your trial