SACHIN KUMAR AND 3 OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

                                                                         AFR

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - A No. - 2923 of 2026

Sachin Kumar and 3 others
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

Union of India and 4 others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Bansh Raj Mishra, Indrajeet Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : A.S.G.I., Gopal Verma

Chief Justice's Court
            HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            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.
                                                      WRIA No. 2923 of 2026
                              2


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
                                                               WRIA No. 2923 of 2026
                                   3


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)

     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
                                                                WRIA No. 2923 of 2026
                                   4


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 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
                                                                                              WRIA No. 2923 of 2026
                                                                    5


                                    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.




                                                                  (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
                                    April 2, 2026
                                    nd




Digitally signed by :-
NISITH DEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad