LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 18-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
 LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA
   v.
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
    (Civil Appeal No. 2020 of 2013)
MAY 18, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 :
s. 3(o) – Commissioned Officer (appellant) in Indian Army –
Inducted in an organization (DGQA) functioning under Ministry of
Defence – Refusal of permanent secondment to the appellant in
DGQA – Refusal order challenged before Armed Forces Tribunal –
Dismissed as not maintainable – On appeal, held: Enumerations
under s. 3(o) indicate that they all relate to matters relating to
conditions of service pertaining to the conditions of service of
persons subject to Army Act, Navy Act and Air Force Act – Impugned
order before the Tribunal was by a different organization –
Therefore, cannot be held to be service matter within the meaning
of s. 3(o) – ss. 27 and 33 of Army Act are also not applicable in the
present case – Army Act, 1950 – ss. 27 and 33 – Navy Act, 1957 –
Air Force Act, 1950.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 has been
enacted to provide for the adjudication or trial by Armed Forces
Tribunal of disputes and complaints with respect to commission,
appointments, enrolment and conditions of service in respect of
persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and
the Air Force Act, 1950. [Para 12] [566-A-B]
2. The definition of service matters is an inclusive
definition. A look into the enumerations as contained in Section
3(o) of 2007 Act indicates that they all relate to matters relating
to the conditions of the service of persons subject to the Army
Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950.  Last
enumeration, i.e.,  (iv) of s. 3(o) is “any other matter whatsoever”,
at first blush; it appears that the said enumeration is very wide
  [2018] 4 S.C.R. 560
    560
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
561
which may cover all other residual categories.  But, the phrase
“any other matter whatsoever” is to take colour from the other
three enumerations and the main provision of Section 3(o).  The
pre-condition of a matter to be a service mater has to be relating
to the conditions of their service.  Thus, for a matter to be treated
as a service matter, it must relate to the conditions of their service.
[Para 14][567-C-E]
3. From the facts, it is clear that the appellant was given a
tenure of two years in Directorate General of Quality Assurance
(DGQA) in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry
of Defence, Department of Defence Production. After completion
of tenure of two years, the appellant returned back to the Army.
On 06.06.2007, the appellant’s claim for permanent secondment
in the DGQA was considered by the Quality Assurance Selection
Board (QASB), wherein he was not found fit for the permanent
secondment by the QASB, with regard to which a complaint was
filed, which was rejected by the Ministry.  DGQA is an
Organisation functioning under the Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence Production and the question of permanent
secondment of an Army Officer was considered by the Selection
Board of DGQA.  The decision not to grant permanent
secondment to the appellant in DGQA does not in any manner
affect the service conditions of the appellant as Commissioned
Officer. [Para 15][567-F-H; 568-A]
4. In the present case, the action, which was impugned
before the Armed Forces Tribunal was the refusal of permanent
secondment of the appellant in DGQA by QASB. For permanent
secondment of a Commission Officer, there were orders issued
by the Ministry of Defence, which regulated the permanent
secondment, i.e. Government Order dated 28.10.1978, as
amended from time to time and the Government of India O.M.
dated 22.12.1993.  Non-selection of the appellant which was
impugned in the application was by a different organisation, i.e.,
by QASB of DGQA. Therefore, action impugned before the
Tribunal cannot be held to be service matter within the meaning
of Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
[Paras 22, 23][573-C-E]
LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA  v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
5. In the present case, Section 27 has no application. Section
27 of the Army Act, 1950 provides a remedy to aggrieved officers
to submit a complaint to the Central Government, if he has been
wronged by a commanding officer or any superior officer.  Present
is not a case where any action of commanding officer or

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.