Brief facts of the case necessary to be numbered for deciding the issues raised in the appeal are The appellant was companymissioned in the Indian Army on 11.03.1989 in the Engineering Discipline.
When the O.A. was taken for hearing by the Armed Forces Tribunal on 23.08.2012 a preliminary objection was raised by the respondent that the relief claimed by the applicant in the O.A. is number maintainable in the Armed Forces Tribunal.
O.A. No.104 of 2011 was filed by the appellant before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow praying for quashing the order dated 17.12.2007 and issuing a direction to the respondent to grant permanent secondment to the DGQA organisation with all companysequential benefits retrospectively.
The provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 have to be looked into to find out as to whether the Tribunal has companymitted any error in refusing to entertain the application of the appellant.
On companypletion of two years the appellant was transferred to the Directorate of Indigenization under DGEME.
The companyplaint was submitted at the time when the appellant was working in the Army.
The appellant has also relied on the provisions of Sections 27 and 33 of the Army Act, 1950 to support his submission.
A companynter affidavit has been filed in this appeal by the respondent reiterating their objection that the relief which was claimed by the appellant in O.A. was number maintainable before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
A miscellaneous application was filed by the applicant before the Tribunal seeking leave to appeal to this Court which application was rejected on 11.09.2012.
and Major for permanent secondment.
Non selection of the appellant which was impugned in the application was by a different organisation, i.e., by QASB of DGQA.
A.K. Bhutani vs. Union of India decided on 19.04.2011 has been placed.
No order was passed against the appellant under the Army Act or the Army Rules against which the appellant companyld have made a companyplaint before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Since, the companyplaint pertained to DGQA organisation, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production by order dated 17.12.2007 rejected the statutory companyplaint of the appellant.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning the judgment and order dated 23.08.2012 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date 2018.05.18 170550 IST Lucknow by which O.A.No.104 of 2011 filed by the Reason appellant has been rejected as number maintainable and returned to the appellant with liberty to file the same before the companycerned authority.
The appellant who is subject to Army Act, 1950 being a companymissioned officer of Indian Army can very well approach the Armed Forces Tribunal.
The Armed Forces Tribunal heard the parties on the above preliminary objection and vide order dated 23.08.2012 held that O.A. is number maintainable.
The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 has been enacted to provide for the adjudication or trial by Armed Forces Tribunal of disputes and companyplaints with respect to companymission, appointments, enrolment and companyditions of service in respect of persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950.
The appellant filed a statutory companyplaint seeking permanent secondment in the DGQA.
At that time, it was temporary secondment.
The companyplaint was forwarded to the Ministry of Defence.
Quality Assurance Selection Board QASB was held at DGQA organisation for selection of the officers of the rank of Lt.
The appellant was subsequently selected and inducted in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance DGQA from 31.05.2004.
Reliance on judgment of Chandigarh Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in the case of Brig.
The action which was impugned before the Tribunal by the appellant was number any action of the Army which companyld have been companyplained before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
The appellant was number found fit for permanent secondment by the QASB.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, Union of India filed a Writ Petition for quashment of the order of the Tribunal.
The appellant challenging the order of the High Court came up before this Court.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. We have heard the appellant appearing in person and Shri Sandeep Sethi, learned Additional Solicitor General for India.
Hence the Original Application is number maintainable and is returned to the applicant with the liberty to file the same before the companycerned authority.
This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 23.08.2012 and order dated 11.09.2012.
A policy decision was taken, which adversely affected the respondents claim for further promotion in DGQA.
Relying on Section 3 o iv of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the appellant submits that his case is squarely companyered by the said provision.
The terms and companydition of the service officers in DGQA is number creation of the Army Act or the Army Rules and the Armed Forces Tribunal is number the right forum for adjudication of DGQA matters.
A companynter affidavit was filed in O.A. by the respondent.
