W.P.(C) No. 13130 of 2017
21.07.2017
Mr. S.S. Das, learned Sr. Counsel along with Ms. S. Das files memo of appearance of behalf of the petitioners in Court today, which is taken on record.
Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel also file memo of appearance on behalf of the opposite parties, which is taken on record.
The name of Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel be indicated in the cause list.
The petitioners, who were working under the Army, Navy and Air Force, have filed this application for pay parity as per Military Service Pay (MSP) paid to the Commissioned Officers and Personnel belonging to Military Nursing Service and further seek for a direction to the opposite parties to grant the consequential benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law.
Preliminary objection was raised with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel raises objection and states that on constitution of Army Tribunal, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application.
Mr. S.S. Das, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners referring to Section 14 of the Armed Force Tribunal Act, 2007 states that the jurisdiction of this Court has not excluded, rather it is inclusive under the said provision, wherein under Sub-clause-1, it has been clearly indicated that save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority, exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court or a High Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to all service matters. It is contended that exercising the power under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution has not been excluded in view of the provisions contained under Section 14 of the Armed Force Tribunal Act. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 and Union of India and others v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and another, (2015) 6 SCC 773.
In view of such position, keeping the question of maintainability open for consideration, issue notice to the opposite parties.
Three extra copies of the writ petition along with annexures be served on Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel within three days, who shall take instruction in the matter or file counter affidavit.
List it after four weeks.
. JUDGE
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
21.07.2017
Mr. S.S. Das, learned Sr. Counsel along with Ms. S. Das files memo of appearance of behalf of the petitioners in Court today, which is taken on record.
Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel also file memo of appearance on behalf of the opposite parties, which is taken on record.
The name of Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel be indicated in the cause list.
The petitioners, who were working under the Army, Navy and Air Force, have filed this application for pay parity as per Military Service Pay (MSP) paid to the Commissioned Officers and Personnel belonging to Military Nursing Service and further seek for a direction to the opposite parties to grant the consequential benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law.
Preliminary objection was raised with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel raises objection and states that on constitution of Army Tribunal, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application.
Mr. S.S. Das, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners referring to Section 14 of the Armed Force Tribunal Act, 2007 states that the jurisdiction of this Court has not excluded, rather it is inclusive under the said provision, wherein under Sub-clause-1, it has been clearly indicated that save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority, exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court or a High Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to all service matters. It is contended that exercising the power under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution has not been excluded in view of the provisions contained under Section 14 of the Armed Force Tribunal Act. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 and Union of India and others v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and another, (2015) 6 SCC 773.
In view of such position, keeping the question of maintainability open for consideration, issue notice to the opposite parties.
Three extra copies of the writ petition along with annexures be served on Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Govt. Counsel within three days, who shall take instruction in the matter or file counter affidavit.
List it after four weeks.
. JUDGE
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
Sir, Why we are not filing a case for MSP before Armed Forces Tribunal who has got the jurisdiction in the matter. We should have learn it from earlier litigation before Delhi High Court which turned down our case for filing before AFT.
ReplyDeleteJK Kaushik Ext Sgt
Sir,
ReplyDeleteDelhi High Court had turned down similar case of MSP in the first instance on the ground of jurisdiction with observation that jurisdiction lies with AFT. Why we have again filed a case before another High Court.
I think we should approach the correct forum and tale lesson from past action.
In second case filed before Delhi High Court, observation are of no consequence and cannot be legally enforceable.
Copycat programs designed to resemble popular mainstays stay a favorite way of
ReplyDeletetrying to deceive users, according to Ahn. Google eliminated over a quarter of a million of these
impersonating apps last year.