# Sachin Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 732
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-02
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2923 of 2026
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-kumar-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-54471
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(c) The petitioners cannot be extended the benefit of Section 33-G of the Act of 1982 as their
initial appointment on ad-hoc basis was dehors the statutory provisions and illegal, being void ab
initio.

(d) The term "continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment up to the
date of commencement" in Section 33-G (1) (c) refers to continuous service based on a valid
appointment on ad-hoc basis. It does not encompass within it a continuity in service based on an
illegal appointment on ad-hoc basis, dehors the statutory provisions, even though such continuity is
based on interim order passed in judicial proceedings, as held in para 174 of the judgment passed
by the Full Bench (five judges) of this Court while interpreting a similar provision contained in
Section 33-B (1) (c) of the Act of 1982.

45. The writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 732
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ A No. 2923 of 2026

Sachin Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Maintainability of writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court against an order passed by the Armed
Forces Tribunal at New Delhi.

Headnotes
(A) Practice and Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Maintainability of writ - Order was passed
by the Armed Forces Tribunal at New Delhi - However, writ petition was filed before the
Allahabad High Court - Preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ was raised by the
respondent - Defense of residence was taken by the petitioner - Permissibility: (E-1)
Held: Hon'ble Supreme Court with reference to the Constitution Bench judgement in the case of L. Chandra
Kumar came to a categorical conclusion that all decisions of Tribunals will be subject to the scrutiny before a
Division Bench of the High Court 'within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls - The law declared by
the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain
whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the
Constitution of India - Writ petition filed by the petitioners for lack of territorial jurisdiction is not maintainable
before this Court. [Para 12, 13 and 22]

Case Law Cited
4 All. Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
733
Writ Petition No. 10385 of 2013, Punjab National Bank vs. Shri Sakhroo Ram and others decided on
08.12.2025 (Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench) Union of India and others vs. Parashotam Dass,
2023 INSC 265; Paritosh Kumar vs. Union of India and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 1; U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mills
Limited vs. State of U.P. and others, 1995(4) SCC 738; Nasiruddin vs. State Transport Appellate Authority,
1975(2) SCC 671; Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 108; Union of India
vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, (2022) 3 SCC 133; L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261. -
referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226 (2); Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Section 14; Armed Forces Tribunal
(Procedure) Rules, 2008 - Rule 6.

List of Keywords
Reinstatement, Preliminary objection, Territorial jurisdiction, Residence of petitioner, res-integra, Bundle of
facts, Indefiniteness, Multiplicity.

Case Arising From
Order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Bansh Raj Mishra, Indrajeet Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondents: A.S.G.I., Gopal Verma.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,C.J.
&
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. This petition is directed against order 19.09.2025 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi.

2. The petitioners had filed Original Applications ('OAs') before the Tribunal under Section 14
of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 whereby they were discharged from service locally on
academic grounds and prayed for quashing of the impugned order, seeking reinstatement with all
consequential benefits.

3. The OAs filed by the petitioners were heard along with few other OAs and the Tribunal by
the order impugned came to the conclusion that the OAs were devoid of merit and consequently,
dismissed the same. Aggrieved of the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New
Delhi, the present petition has been filed.

4. Counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection that as the order impugned has
been passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi, this Court does not have the
territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter.

5. Submissions have been made that the applicants in other OAs have already approached
Delhi High Court, wherein counter affidavit has been called and to avoid conflicting decision qua
the same common impugned order also, the petition be not entertained by this Court at Allahabad.
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Counsel for the petitioners contested the submissions made. It has been submitted that in
terms of Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 ('Rules, 2008'), the OA
could have been filed with the Bench of the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the petitioner was
last posted or where the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen. However, sub-rule (2) of Rule
6 of the Rules, 2008 provides that a person who is ceased to be in service by reason of his
retirement, dismissal, discharge at his option can file an application with the Bench of the Tribunal
within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application.

7. Submissions have been made that in fact the Original Application could only be filed before
the Bench of the Tribunal at Visakhapatnam or based on the residence of the petitioner nos. 2, 3 &
4 with Bench at Lucknow and in view of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2008 as the petition
could have been filed at Lucknow, this Court would have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

8. Reliance has been placed on judgement in Punjab National Bank v. Shri Sakhroo Ram
and others : Writ Petition No. 10385 of 2013 decided on 08.12.2025 by Madhya Pradesh High
Court at Jabalpur Bench, Union of India and others v. Parashotam Dass : 2023 INSC 265,
Paritosh Kumar v. Union of India and others : 2013 (9) ADJ 1, U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mills
Limited v. State of U.P. and others : 1995(4) SCC 738 and Nasiruddin v. State Transport
Appellate Authority : 1975(2) SCC 671.

9. Counsel for the respondents submitted that one of the petitioners Sachin Kumar son of
Saheb Singh is not even the resident of Uttar Pradesh and that the issue would be governed by
judgement in Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others : (2005) 1 UPLBEC 108.

10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.

11. The issue, as raised in the present matter, is no more res-integra as Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay : (2022) 3 SCC 133, while dealing with the said
aspect with reference to Constitution Bench judgement in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India :
(1997) 3 SCC 261 inter-alia came to the following conclusion :

"37. Further, it was held thus: (L. Chandra Kumar case)

"99. ...The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon
the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of
our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other Courts and Tribunals may perform
a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the
Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution are
possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All
decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the
High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls."

(emphasis supplied)
4 All. Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
735

38. When once a Constitution Bench of this Court declared the law that "all decisions of
Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution will be subject to the
scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal
concerned falls", it is impermissible to make any further construction on the said issue. The
expression ?all decisions of these Tribunals" used by the Constitution Bench will cover and take
within its sweep orders passed on applications or otherwise in the matter of transfer of Original
Applications from one Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench of the Tribunal in exercise of the
power under Section 25 of the Act.

40. The law thus declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by a Bench of
lesser quorum or for that matter by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain
whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within the ambit of Article
226(2) of the Constitution. We are of the considered view that taking another view would
undoubtedly result in indefiniteness and multiplicity in the matter of jurisdiction in situations when
a decision passed under Section 25 of the Act is to be called in question especially in cases
involving multiple parties residing within the jurisdiction of different High Courts albeit aggrieved
by one common order passed by the Chairman at the Principal Bench at New Delhi."

(emphasis supplied)

12. It would be seen that Hon'ble Supreme Court with reference to the Constitution Bench
judgement in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (Supra) came to a categorical conclusion that all
decisions of Tribunals will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court
'within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls'.

13. The Court further observed that the law declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be
revisited by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain whether they would
confer territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the
Constitution of India.

14. It was emphasized that if order passed by Principal Bench at New Delhi is to be called in
question in cases involving multiple parties residing within the jurisdiction of different High Courts
aggrieved by one common order, the same would result in indefiniteness and multiplicity. The said
determination squarely applies to the present case.

15. In fact, in a case of present matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated that the High Court
should have confined its consideration to decide its own territorial jurisdiction without reference to
the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action for filing Original Application in terms of Rule
6(2) of the Rules, 2008 involved therein, which is identical to the Rule cited by counsel for the
petitioners.

16. The observations read as under :

"32. When once the High Court found the order impugned as one passed by the Principal
Bench we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court should have confined its consideration
firstly, to decide its own territorial jurisdiction for exercising the power of judicial review over the
order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Principal Bench in Personnel, Public Grievances and
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pensions v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay in the correct perspective, without reference to the bundle of
facts constituting the cause of action for filing O.A. No. 1619 of 2021 before the Kolkata Bench of
the Tribunal founded on the cause of action referred to in Rule 6(2) of the Procedure Rules that
decides the place of filing of an O.A."

17. In view of the above categorical law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have no
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that as the order impugned has been passed by the Principal
Bench of the Tribunal, New Delhi, this Court would lack territorial jurisdiction to hear challenge to
the said order.

18. So far as the judgements cited by counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the same have
no application to the subject matter of the present case as in the case of Parashotam Dass (Supra),
the only issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was maintainability of writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India against orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal.

19. The judgement in the case of Paritosh Kumar (Supra) deals with the dispute pertaining
to the maintainability of proceedings before the Principal Seat and Bench. The judgement in the
case of U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mills Limited (Supra) pertains to Article 226(2) of the Constitution
of India qua which in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has
clearly ruled that the said aspect need not be gone into.

20. Similarly, the judgement in the case of Nasiruddin (Supra), also inter-alia deals with
maintainability of matters between Principal Seat and the Bench.

21. Judgement in the case of Sakhroo Ram (Supra) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court deals
with a case where appellate jurisdiction for several States is conferred on one authority situated at
other State, which is not the case here.

22. In view of above discussion, following the judgement in the case of Alapan
Bandyopadhyay (Supra), it is held that the writ petition filed by the petitioners for lack of
territorial jurisdiction is not maintainable before this Court. The same is, therefore, dismissed,
leaving it open for the petitioners to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 736
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ A No. 2968 of 2010

Pramod Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India ...Respondent