# State of U.P. & Ors v. Satya Prakash Gupta

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 344
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-30
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 843 of 2023
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-satya-prakash-gupta-49575
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Ashutosh Shahi, Shireesh Kumar

Held:
Once the upgraded pay scale of Rs.3740067000 with Grade Pay Rs.8700/- for the post of
Superintending Engineer has been upheld by
Division Bench and affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ashok Kanojia Vs St. of U.P.
and Birendra Kumar Maurya Vs St. of U.P., there
remains no scope for the St. to re-agitate the
settled issue in further proceedings. Dismissal of
the review petition, even after liberty granted in
earlier Special Appeal, does not reopen the
issue. The Government Order dated 13.12.2011
having already been quashed in Writ Petition
No. 578 (SB) of 2012 remains unchallenged.
Thus, denial of upgraded pay scale to similarly
situated Executive Engineers including the
respondent was rightly interfered with by the
learned Single Judge.

Appeal dismissed.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disproportionate to the gravity of the
charges.

50. In our opinion, both the
charges being serious in nature, therefore,
the order of dismissal passed against the
appellant cannot be faulted with and nor
can it be said to be, in any way,
disproportionate to the gravity of charges.
In other words, punishment of dismissal
was proportionate with the gravity of the
charges and hence deserves to be upheld."

(31) In any case, this Court cannot be
oblivious to the fact that it is not the normal
jurisdiction of the superior Courts to
interfere with the quantum of sentence,
unless it is wholly disproportionate to the
misconduct proved. This Court finds that
considering the nature of the allegations, its
proof and that the petitioner was in banking
service, the punishment of dismissal from
service is not disproportionate.

(32) Considering the aforesaid aspects
of the matter, the case law cited by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant/petitioner does not come to his
rescue and the reasoning given by the
learned Single Judge while dismissing the
writ petition is perfect from all respects and
no interference is required in the said
finding.

(33) Our view is fortified by the
judgment of the Division Bench dated
20.04.2015 passed in Writ-A No.65358 of
2013 and hence, we are fully in agreement
with
the
observations
made
in
the
impugned judgment and order.

(34) For all the reasons stated here-inabove, the Special Appeal filed by the
appellant/petitioner lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 344
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 843 of 2023

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Satya Prakash Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Ashutosh Shahi, Shireesh Kumar

Held:
Once the upgraded pay scale of Rs.3740067000 with Grade Pay Rs.8700/- for the post of
Superintending Engineer has been upheld by
Division Bench and affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ashok Kanojia Vs St. of U.P.
and Birendra Kumar Maurya Vs St. of U.P., there
remains no scope for the St. to re-agitate the
settled issue in further proceedings. Dismissal of
the review petition, even after liberty granted in
earlier Special Appeal, does not reopen the
issue. The Government Order dated 13.12.2011
having already been quashed in Writ Petition
No. 578 (SB) of 2012 remains unchallenged.
Thus, denial of upgraded pay scale to similarly
situated Executive Engineers including the
respondent was rightly interfered with by the
learned Single Judge.

Appeal dismissed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Ashok Kanojia Vs St. of U.P. & anr.

2. St. of U.P. Vs Birendra Kumar Maurya & anr.,
SLP(C) No. 17297/2014

3. Narottam Kumar Agarwal Vs St. of U.P., W.P.
No. 1063 (SB) of 2014
12 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Satya Prakash Gupta
345
4. St. of Mah. Vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak,
(1982) 2 SCC 643

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J. & Hon'ble Om Prakash
Shukla, J.)

(1) Heard Sri Amitabh Kumar Rai,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing
for
the
State
Authorities/
appellants/applicants and Sri Ashutosh
Shahi, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent/petitioner.

(2) This intra-court appeal filed under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952 is delayed by one day.

(3) The appeal is accompanied with
the application for condonation of delay
supported with an affidavit.

(4) Since sufficient cause has been
shown by the learned Counsel for the
applicants/appellants and learned counsel
for
the
respondent/petitioner
has
no
objection, the application for condonation
of delay is allowed and the delay in filing
the appeal is condoned.

(5) Let the appeal be assigned a
regular number.

Order on the appeal

(6) The instant Special Appeal has
been filed by the State assailing the
judgment and order dated 19.07.2022
passed in a bunch of writ petitions, leading
Writ-A No.200222 of 2015, Kuldeep
Kumar and 100 others v. State of U.P. and
others. The bunch also included the writ
petition filed by the respondent-petitioner,
i.e., Writ-A No. 23634 of 2017. The appeal
has also sought to challenge the judgment
and order dated 21.09.2023 passed in Civil
Misc. Review Application Defective No.
197 of 2023 arising out of the above
common judgment.

(7) The operative portion of the
impugned common judgment and order
dated 19.07.2022 reads as under:-

"14. In view of the aforesaid position,
I see no reason as to how the petitioners
can be discriminated when the controversy
has been settled by the Division Bench of
this Court and Special Leave Petition
against the said judgment has been
dismissed.
Not
only
that,
even
subsequently, this Court has given benefit
to other employees by the judgment passed
by a Division of Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.17859 of 2016. The State has
fairly submitted before this Court that the
case of persons who were similarly situated
to the petitioners would be governed by the
judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court rendered in the case of Ashok
Kanojia versus State of U.P. and others.

15. At this stage, it is relevant to quote
the findings recorded by the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Ashok Kanojia
versus State of U.P. and others as under:

"In view of what has been discussed
above, we are of the view that the opposite
parties have wrongly denied the benefit of
revised pay scale of Rs.37400 to 67000
with Grade Pay of Rs. 8700 which is the
only pay scale of the post of Superintending
Engineer. After the up-gradation of pay
scale there is only one pay scale of the post
of Superintending Engineer which is 37400
to 67000 with grade pay of Rs. 8700 and
the petitioners being the Superintending
Engineers are entitled to get this pay scale.

In view of the Government Order
dated 04.05.2010 both the writ petitions
succeed.
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Both the writ petitions are allowed and
the impugned orders dated 21.01.2013 as
contained as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ
Petition No. 236 (SB) of 2013 and the
Government Order dated 14.02.2013 as
contained as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ
Petition No. 1440 (SB) of 2013, are hereby
quashed. The opposite parties are directed
to make payment of salary to the petitioners
in Pay Band-IV with grade pay of Rs. 8700
with effect from the date they are found
eligible alongwith the arrears, if any,
within three months."

16. For the reason aforesaid, this
Court is of the considered view that the
case of the petitioners is duly covered by
the judgment rendered in the case of
Ashok Kanojia (supra). The petitioners
are also entitled for the same benefit
which has been given to the petitioners by
the Division Bench in the aforesaid case.

17. In view of the aforesaid facts and
legal position, the writ petitions are
allowed and the Government Order dated
10.04.2015, reference of which has been
given above is hereby quashed, so far as it
says that the petitioners are not entitled for
the benefit of G.O. dated 10.04.2015. In
consequence thereof the order rejecting the
representation of the petitioners i.e. order
dated
18.07.2016
passed
by
State
Government in Writ Petition No.19881 (SB)
2016; order dated 09.09.2016 issued by
Office of Engineer-in-Chief (Development)
& Head of Department, Public Works
Department, Nirman Bhawan, Lucknow
and order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the
State Government in Writ Petition No.3607
(SB) 2017; order dated 28.07.2015 &
Clarification
Order
dated
10.04.2015
passed by State Government in Writ
Petition No.3169 (SB) 2016; order dated
01.07.2015 passed by State Government &
Government order dated 10.04.2015 passed
by Principal Secretary, Finance, Govt. of
U.P. in Writ Petition No.1112 (SB) 2015;
order dated 28.05.2015 passed by State
Government & Government order dated
10.04.2015 passed by Principal Secretary,
Finance, Govt. of U.P. in Writ Petition
No.1051
(SB)
2015;
order
dated
28.05.2015 passed by State Government &
Government order dated 10.04.2015 passed
by Principal Secretary, Finance, Govt. of
U.P. in Writ Petition No.1050 (SB) 2015;
order
dated
13.03.2015
passed
by
Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department
& Government order dated 10.04.2015
passed by Principal Secretary, Finance,
Govt. of U.P. in Writ Petition No.569 (SB)
2015; order dated 27.10.2017 issued by
Office of Engineer-in-Chief (Development)
& Head of Department, Public Works
Department, Nirman Bhawan, Lucknow
and order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the
State
Government
in
Writ
Petition
No.32212
(SB)
2017;
order
dated
16.06.2016 passed by Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department in Writ Petition
No.20134
(SB)
2016;
order
dated
12.08.2014 passed by Principal Secretary,
Rural Engineering Department in Writ
Petition No.87 (SB) 2015; order dated
14.02.2017
issued by
the
Office
of
Engineer-in-Chief (Development) & Head
of Department, Public Works Department,
Nirman Bhawan, Lucknow and order dated
21.09.2015 passed by the State Government
in Writ Petition No.3060 (SB) 2017 and
order dated 11.07.2016 passed by Principal
Secretary,
Energy
Department,
Civil
Secretariat, Lucknow is hereby quashed.
The respondents are directed to give the
benefit of the aforesaid judgment rendered
in Ashok Kanojia (supra).
18. Since it has been brought to my notice
that during pendency of the aforesaid
bunch of writ petitions, large number of
petitioners have attained the age of
superannuation and are no longer in
12 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Satya Prakash Gupta
347
service. Therefore, the respondents are
directed to refix the pay of such petitioners
and issue revised Pension Pay Order. The
respondents
are
further
directed
to
complete the process of fixation of pay,
payment of arrears of salary and revised
Pension Pay Order within a period of four
months. In the event, the aforesaid benefit
is not extended in the period prescribed
above, the petitioners will be entitled for
simple interest at the rate of 7%."

(8) An occasion to file review
application
of
the
judgment
dated
19.07.2022 arose on account of the fact that
this Court in the order dated 13.03.2023 of
previous intra-Court Appeal No. 71 of 2023
was of the opinion that the contentions
raised by the State were not duly
considered in the light of the order dated
14.11.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 17297 of 2014,
State of U.P. v. Birendra Kumar Maurya
and another, therefore, permission for filing
review application was granted partly to
overcome the stand of which a concession
was made by the earlier counsel contrary to
record. The operative portion of the order
dated 13.03.2023 passed in Special Appeal
Defective No. 71 of 2023 reads as under:-

"When we peruse the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single
Judge, which is under challenge before us
what we find is that in para 14 the learned
Single Judge has recorded that "the State
has fairly submitted before this Court that
the case of persons, who were similarly
situated to the petitioners, would be
governed by the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court rendered in the case of
'Ashok Kanojia v. State of U.P. and others'.

When we drew the attention of the
learned State counsel to the aforesaid
finding recorded and observation made by
the learned Single Judge in the judgment
and order under challenge before us, it has
been submitted by the learned State counsel
that no such case was ever set up by the
State before the learned Single Judge and it
appears that the said observation has crept
in on account of some misconception.

Be
that
as
it
may,
the
observations made or findings recorded in
respect of factual aspects of the matter by
the Court in its order/ ordersheet is treated
to be sacrosanct in law. Though it is not
that any party denying such statement
having been made before the court
concerned can not controvert the same,
however, such opportunity of controverting
will be available before the court which
records any such statement. Reference in
this regard may be had to the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas
Nayak and another, reported in (1982) 2
SCC 643.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of
the opinion that the appellants-State
authorities will be better advised to seek
review of the judgment and order, which is
under challenge before us in this special
appeal.

Thus, this special appeal is
disposed of with the aforesaid liberty."

(9) Taking the aid of the order dated
13.03.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Special Appeal Defective
No. 71 of 2023, the State went to file Civil
Misc. Review Application Defective No.
197 of 2023 before the learned Single
Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge
while dismissing the review petition on
21.09.2023 has observed as under:-

22. This Court has gone through
the judgment of the Division Bench dated
13.3.2023 and reaffirms the statements
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made before this Court as discussed and
recorded in the judgment dated 19.7.2022.

23. Even for a moment it is
assumed that the matter can be re-agitated
before this Court after determination up to
the level of the Supreme Court this Court
finds itself bound by the judgment of the
Division Bench which admittedly has not
been set aside by any higher Court or by
any larger Bench.

24. This view as taken by the
Division Bench in the case of Kanojia has
also been rendered in number of other
cases as stated in the case of State vs.
Birendra Kumar Maurya and also in
Narottam Kumar Agarwal vs. State of U.P.
in Writ Petition No.1063 (SB) of 2014
decided on 23.9.2014. It has been informed
that even in the case of Narottam Kumar
Agarwal the SLP No.4776 of 2015 has been
dismissed on 23.3.2015.

25. In light of the above there is
no ground for review.

26. It is unfortunate that the
Standing Counsel has not disclosed the
correct and full facts before the Division
bench which has unnecessarily necessitated
filing of the present review petition.

27. In light of the above, review
petition is dismissed with a cost of
Rs.10,000/-."

(10)

Assailing
the
impugned
judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 as
well as the dismissal of review on
21.09.2023, the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel has made two-fold
submissions to the effect that as per
Government Order dated 18.03.2011, the
two pay scales of Superintending Engineer
initial and selection grade were upgraded
from Rs.12000-16500 & Rs.14300-18300
to the single pay scale of Rs.37400 - 67000
(Pay Band - 4/Grade Pay Rs.8,700/-) with
immediate effect. Secondly, he submitted
that the State Government in vivid terms
has clarified in the Government Order
dated 13.12.2011 that up-gradation of payscale of Superintending Engineers will not
have any effect on the pay scale of
Assistant Engineers & Executive Engineers
who
are
getting
time-scale
of
Superintending Engineer after 18 & 16
years services respectively, as personal pay
scale which is equivalent to Pay Band - 3
(Rs.15600-39100), meaning thereby that
they are not entitled for Rs.8,700/- Grade
Pay.

(11) On the other hand, learned
Counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent/petitioner has submitted that the
issue has been set at rest by a Division
Bench of this Court and by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, as stated above. So far as
Government Order dated 13.12.2011 is
concerned,
learned
Counsel
for
the
respondent/petitioner has relied upon an
order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Writ Petition No. 578 (SB) of
2012 whereby the Writ Court while
allowing the writ petition has set aside the
Order dated 13.12.2011 and thereafter, the
aforesaid bunch of writ petitions was filed
by the respective petitioners. Against this
order, neither the State Government nor any
party has approached the superior Court.
The operative portion of the order dated
16.05.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 578
(SB) of 2012 reads as under:-

"It is well settled proposition of law
that a person cannot be deprived of his
civil rights in violation of principles of
natural justice. Accordingly, the writ
petition is allowed and the impugned order
dated 13th December, 2011, as contained in
Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, is set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the
State Government to decide the controversy
12 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Satya Prakash Gupta
349
afresh after serving a show cause notice on
the petitioners and seeking reply thereon,
expeditiously say preferably within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the present order.

It is clarified that we have not entered
into the merits of the case."

(12) Learned Counsel for the
respondent/petitioner has submitted that if
the above orders are read consecutively, it
is aptly conspicuous that though the issue
has already been settled by the superior
Courts, yet the respondent/petitioner and
similarly situated persons are not able to
reap the benefits of the judgments passed
by the Apex Court as well as by this
Court.

(13) Considered the submissions
made by the rival parties and perused the
record extensively including the relevant
orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and this Court.

(14) After hearing learned Counsel for
the parties, the question that arises for
consideration
is,
"whether
the
respondent/ petitioner is entitled for
salary in the upgraded pay scale of Pay
Band 4 Rs.37400-67000/- Grade Pay
Rs.8,700/- w.e.f. 20.05.2011 on actual
basis and w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on notional
basis or not?"

(15) The reply is in the affirmative
and in order to arrive at the conclusions, it
is necessary to delve into the contents of
Government
Order
dated
18.03.2011
upgrading the pay scale of Superintending
Engineer from Rs.12000-16500 (revised as
Pay Band Rs.15600-39100 Grade Pay
Rs.7,600 w.e.f. 01.01.2006) to Rs.1430018300 (revised as Pay Band - 4 Rs.3740067000 Grade Pay - Rs.8,700).

(16) Pursuant to the Government
Order
dated
18.03.2011,
the
State
Government vide order dated 20.05.2011
has
upgraded
the
pay
scale
of
Superintending Engineer as stated in the
preceding paragraph, however, with a
stipulation that the said benefit would be
granted
w.e.f
01.01.2006
on
hypothetical/notional
basis
and
with
immediate effect i.e., 20.05.2011 on actual
basis.

(17) When the aforesaid benefit was
denied to the persons similarly situated as
compared to the petitioner in Writ Petition
No. 578 (SB) of 2012, one Mr. Ashok
Kanojia, an Executive Engineer, Public
Works Department and one Mr. Birendra
Kumar Maurya, an Executive Engineer of
Irrigation Department filed Writ Petition
Nos. 236 (SB) of 2013 and Rs.1440 (SB) of
2014 respectively before this Court which
were allowed with the directions to the
respondents to grant/release salary in Pay
Band - 4 of Rs.37400-67000 Grade Pay
Rs.8,700/- to the petitioners vide common
judgment and order dated 28.01.2014, as
corrected vide order dated 06.02.2014.

(18) Aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment and order dated 28.01.2014, as
corrected vide order dated 06.02.2014 , the
State filed two Special Leave Petitions. The
earlier Special Leave Petition No.15453 of
2014, State of U.P. and others v. Ashok
Kanojia, which was filed before the Apex
Court, was dismissed vide order dated
14.07.2014 and the order reads as under:-

"We find no merit in this petition.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed."

(19) However, against the same very
aforesaid judgment and order when the
State Government filed another Special
Leave Petition No. 17297 of 2014, State of
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
U.P. v. Birendra Kumar Maurya and
another, the following order was passed by
the Apex Court on 14.11.2014:-

"Delay condoned.

We are not inclined to entertain
this special leave petition, inasmuch as
against the very same judgment at the
instance of the petitioner against another
person we declined to entertain the special
leave petition in SLP(C) No.15453/2014.
The instant special leave petition is
dismissed.

Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that there are about 500 others
who also state their claim based on the
above judgment of the High Court. It is
also the submission of the learned senior
counsel that the stand of the petitioner is
not being considered by the High Court in
other pending matters.

We only make it clear that the
dismissal of this special leave petition
shall not stand in the way of the petitioner
raising all or any other contentions
available to it in law in the pending
proceedings."

(20) Relying on the aforesaid
observations and order passed by the Apex
Court,
the
judgment
rendered
on
19.07.2022 was assailed in Special Appeal
Defective No. 71 of 2023, State of U.P. v.
Kuldeep Kumar and others, which was
disposed of by order dated 13.03.2023,
pursuant to which, the State filed Civil
Misc. Review Application Defective No.
197 of 2023 which was dismissed with
Rs.10,000/-
costs
vide
order
dated
21.09.2023.

(21) Simultaneous to the pendency of
proceedings, the State Government took a
decision on 10.04.2015 denying the benefit
of upgraded Pay Band - 4 Grade Pay
Rs.8,700/-
to
the
Assistant
Engineers/Executive Engineers. This action
of
the
State
Government
on
being
challenged in the bunch of writ petitions
was set aside and the learned Single Judge
was of the opinion that the matter has
already been set at rest by the superior
Courts.

(22) If the matter is viewed
telescopically, it emerges that the action of
the State has been agitated by the aggrieved
employees initially by two persons, namely,
Ashok Kanojiya and Birendra Kumar
Maurya in their respective writ petitions
and when their writ petitions were allowed,
the State chose to file two Special Leave
Petitions separately. Though both the
Special
Leave
Petitions
have
been
dismissed, but in the Special Leave Petition
filed in the matter of Birendra Kumar
Maurya, it has been provided that the
dismissal of this special leave petition
shall not stand in the way of the petitioner
raising all or any other contentions
available to it in law in the pending
proceedings.

(23) Since the batch of writ petitions
has been allowed by the learned Single
Judge, wherein there is a reference in
respect of Special Leave Petitions filed by
the State, taking the aid of the aforesaid
order as also the order passed in Special
Appeal Defective No. 71 of 2023, where a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted
liberty to file review petition, the State
Government filed a Review Petition which
too was dismissed on merits with costs of
Rs.10,000/-.

(24) In the instant intra-Court appeal,
the appellants have raised a plea that as per
Government Order dated 13.12.2011, the
12 All. Ls Gi (S) Abhishek Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
351
Assistant Engineers/Executive Engineers
are
not
entitled
for
upgradation
of
Rs.8,700/- Grade Pay. In this regard, it may
be apt to mention here that a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has already allowed the
writ petition No. 578 (SB) of 2012,
Birendra Kumar Maurya and another v.
State of U.P. and others and quashed the
aforesaid
Government
Order
dated
13.12.2011.

(25) Neither the learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel nor the learned
Counsel for the respondent/petitioner has
brought on record to show that the
aforesaid order has been challenged by any
aggrieved party. Once the discrimination
meted
out
to
the
respondent
was
disapproved by this Court as well as by the
Apex Court, no scope has been left for us
to take a different view.

(26) Considering all these aspects of
the matter, we are of the firm opinion that
the State is merely seeking to re-open a
decided matter through the instant Appeal,
although neither any illegality nor infirmity
has been pointed by the learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel either in the order
passed in the bunch of writ petitions or on
the review petition.

(27) It is made clear that since it is a
decided matter, only relevant facts and law
have been considered.

(28) For all the reasons stated above,
the intra-Court appeal filed against the
impugned orders passed by the learned
Single Judge lacks merit and is hereby
dismissed.

(29) There shall be no orders as to
costs.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 351
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ-A No. 8782 of 2022

Ls Gi (S) Abhishek Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manish Kumar Rai, Indrajeet Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Devrishi Kumar

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Section
3(o) - "Service Matters" - Jurisdiction of
Armed
Forces
Tribunal
(AFT)
-
Punishment of reduction in rank and
deprivation
of
good
conduct
badges
awarded in summary trial - Whether
amenable to AFT jurisdiction.
The petitioner, a Petty Officer in the Indian
Navy, was subjected to a summary trial under
Sections 68 and 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957,
and punished with reduction in rank and
deprivation of good conduct badges for
unauthorized
possession
of
liquor.
His
application before the Armed Forces Tribunal
(AFT) challenging this punishment and his
subsequent discharge was dismissed as not
maintainable, with the Tribunal holding that
such a punishment awarded in a summary trial
is not a "service matter" under Section 3(o)(ii)
read with clause (iii) of the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007.

Held: The High Court observed that Section
3(o) of the Act, 2007, defining "service
matters," is illustrative and includes "all matters
relating to the conditions of their service." It
specifically mentions "reversion" under Section
3(o)(ii) and uses the expansive phrase "any
other
matter,
whatsoever"
under
Section
3(o)(iv). The Court noted that the Tribunal