Patna High Court
Arjun Prasad SharmaversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The High Court held that the dispute is a "service matter" within the ambit of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and must be decided by the Armed Forces Tribunal, disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired army personnel, challenged a letter issued by the State Bank of India ordering recovery of pension amounts on the ground that his rank was incorrectly recorded. The Union of India argued that the dispute falls within the definition of "service matters" under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and should be decided by the Tribunal. The High Court examined the scope of "service matters" under Sections 2, 3(o) and 4 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act and held that the matter pertains to a retired army officer’s pension, which is expressly covered. Consequently, the Court directed that the petition be disposed of and the petitioner must approach the Armed Forces Tribunal within 60 days for a stay of the recovery order. The Court also stipulated that no further recovery may occur until the Tribunal decides, and the order will vacate automatically if the petitioner fails to file within the stipulated period.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the pension recovery order.
- Whether the dispute relating to pension recovery falls within the definition of "service matters" under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
- Whether the petitioner must approach the Armed Forces Tribunal for redress.
Legislation cited
- Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 — s. 2, 3(o), 4
- Army Act, 1950
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- Armed Forces Tribunal
- pension recovery
- service matters
- writ petition
- retired army personnel
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13028 of 2025
======================================================
Arjun Prasad Sharma son of Late Dashrath Prasad Sharma, resident of At
Sitalpur, Sharma Tola, P.O. -Sitalpur, Police Station - Dighwara, District -
Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension),
Allahabad, U.P.
2. The Senior Accounts Officer, Audit Section P.C.D.A., Allahabad, Draupadi
Ghat, Prayagraj, U.P.
3. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing
Centre, Samridhi Bhawan, Strand Road, Block-C, 7th and 8th Floor,
Kolkata, West Bengal.
4. The Senior Record Officer, Indian Army Corps of Signals, Jubblepore,
Madhya Pradesh.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the U.O.I. : Mr. Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate (C.G.C)
Mr. Satish Kumar Mehta, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
(i) To quash and set aside the
letter No. CPPC/24- 25/SHR-4762 dated
07.12.2024 issued by the Chief Manager,
State of India CPPC, Samriddhi Bhawan,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13028 of 2025 dt.18-04-2026
2/6
Kolkata (Respondent No. 3) by which an
order for recovery of an amount aggregating
to Rs.17,91,903/- (Rupees seventeen lacs
ninety one thousand nine hundred three) for
the period 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2024 has
been passed on account of rank was fed up
in the system as Sepoy Group Y instead of
reservist, ignoring the certain letter No.
CPPC/24-25/SHR 4431 dated 21.11.2024
issued on the same issue for recovery of an
amount of Rs. 15,93,887.00 (Rupees fifteen
lacs ninety three thousand eight hundred
eighty seven) for the period 01.01.2006 to
31.10.2024.
(ii) For a direction to
Respondent No. 3 to stay the recovery
process and after issuance of notice to the
respondents and after hearing the parties be
pleased to quash the Letter No. 4762 dated
07.12.2024 and direct them to pay the
recovered amount if any to the petitioner
with interest as fixed by the Hon'ble Court.
(iii) To impose the exemplary
cost on the respondents for causing undue
harassment, deducting one third of the gross
pension and for litigation expenses to the
petitioner.
(iv) For any other relief/reliefs
as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13028 of 2025 dt.18-04-2026
3/6
3. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits
that, vide Order No. 2 dated 15.09.2025, it has become crystal
clear that the Stamp Reporter of this Hon’ble Court raised an
objection bearing Defect No. 46 at the time of stamp reporting
regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition. In this
regard, the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to observe that the
aforesaid Defect No. 46 shall be considered at the time of
admission. Counsel further submits that the petition appears to
be a matter of the Armed Forces, hence, the appropriate remedy
lies before the appropriate forum or as may be decided by the
Hon’ble Bench.
4. Counsel further submits that Section 3(o) of the
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 defines “service matters”, in
relation to the persons subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of
1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act,
1950 (45 of 1950), mean all matters relating to the conditions of
their service and shall include allowances, pension, and other
retirement benefits. Counsel further submits that, in the present
matter, the dispute directly relates to pension, therefore, he
submits that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 has
jurisdiction to hear it. Counsel also submits that, in addition,
Section 4 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 deals with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13028 of 2025 dt.18-04-2026
4/6
jurisdiction, powers, and authority in service matters.
5. Counsel further relied on the judgment passed by
this Hon’ble Court in L.P.A. No. 1115 of 2015, decided on
04.11.2015, Ex Cpl Group I 679805, H.B.K. Singh @ Binod
Kumar Singh v. The Union of India & Ors.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response
thereto, submits that the petitioner is aged about 85-86 years and
that, by sending this matter before the Tribunal, he shall be
unnecessarily harassed. Counsel further submits that a counter-
affidavit on behalf of the Union of India has already been filed,
therefore, instead of sending this matter before the Armed
Forces Tribunal, it would be better to decide it here itself.
7. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the
law, the term “service matters” has been defined under Section
3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. It also transpires
to this Court that Section 2 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act,
2007, which deals with the applicability of the Act, indicates
that the provisions of this Act shall apply to all persons subject
to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of
1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950). (2) This Act
shall also apply to retired personnel subject to the Army Act,
1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or the Air
Patna High Court CWJC No.13028 of 2025 dt.18-04-2026
5/6
Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), including their dependants, heirs
and successors, in so far as it relates to their service matters.
8. Admittedly, the present matter relates to the
petitioner, who is a retired person subject to the Army Act, 1950
(46 of 1950). Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the matter
should first be taken before the Armed Forces Tribunal under the
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
9. From the perusal of the counter-affidavit, the
stand taken by the Union of India is that the cause of action has
arisen due to an error committed on the part of the banking
agency, and the said banking agency is not present here.
10. From the perusal of the order passed by this
Hon’ble Court in the case of Ex Cpl Group I 679805, H.B.K.
Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh (supra), it is evident that, under
Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the
definition includes the remuneration, pension and other
retirement benefits of any army personnel and therefore, the said
appeal has been disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to
approach the tribunal constituted under the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007 for the redressal of his grievances. It is due
to this reason, this Court is of the firm view that the remedy lies
before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13028 of 2025 dt.18-04-2026
6/6
11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of. Liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner to seek
stay of the impugned order by filing an application/petition
before the Tribunal within 60 days from today. Till the Tribunal
passes any order on the stay petition, no further recovery shall
be made on the basis of the impugned order.
12. If the petitioner files any application/petition
before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from today, this
Court expects that the concerned Tribunal shall expedite the
disposal of his application/petition as early as possible,
preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing
of such application/petition.
13. It is made clear that, if within 60 days the
petitioner does not file any application/petition before the
concerned Tribunal and apply for stay, then, in that case, the
present order shall automatically stand vacated.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…