Bank-related disputes fall outside AFT’s scope: Punjab and Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) lacks jurisdiction over claims linked to bank disputes, even if they involve defence personnel, when the issues do not originate from the army authorities. The court emphasised that such matters must be resolved in civil courts.
The ruling by the bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma came on a petition filed by a widow challenging a recovery notice issued by a bank over alleged pension overpayments. The petitioner’s counsel referred to a Supreme Court judgment to argue that civilian employees attached to the defence establishments were declared and classified ‘members of the Armed Forces’. But the fact was not been appreciated by the Armed Forces Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner’s plea after observing that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same.
The bench asserted the apex court had specifically held that the civilian employees attached to the defence establishments were validly classified as the Armed Forces’ members. Even if the petitioner’s husband was a non-combatant, he was an integral part of the armed forces and thereby subjected to military law and the provisions embodied in the Army Act.
As such, the dismissal order passed by the tribunal concerned, based on the finding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application, was apparently issued with a “gross non-application of mind”. The impugned notice challenged before the tribunal, however, did not originate from the army authorities but from a back. The dispute, as such, was clearly not between the petitioner and the army authorities, but the bank.
The bench added the show cause notice did not indicate it was issued pursuant to orders from the army authorities. The jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute did not rest with the tribunal unless the notice was issued in compliance with directives from the army authorities to the bank.
“When the dispute is strictly between the petitioner and the banking authorities, as aptly stated, the jurisdiction to try the case does not lie with the tribunal but instead resides with the civil court of competent jurisdiction,” the bench asserted.
Disposing of the plea, the bench upheld the impugned order passed by the tribunal concerned, but gave the petitioner the liberty to access civil court remedies within two months from today. “Until two months from today, the banking authorities may not enforce the show cause notice,” the bench concluded.
