Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
A
) w.P. (c\ 7297l20LL JAGD|SHS|NGH'....Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.Ramesh, Advocate VCTSUS. UNIION OF INDIA AND ORS ""' Respondents
Through: Mr.Sunil Kumar, CGSC for resPgndent No. 1 to 3 w.P.(c) 7298l2oLr
' SEPOY tOGatt CHAND " " ' Petitioner ?-
Through: Ms.Sweety Manchanda' CGSC' w.P. (c) 7299120tL
SHR| KRISHAN ""' Petitioner VCTSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ""' Respondent
Through: Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, CGSC for respondent No.1-4. w.P.(c) 73oLl2ott
DILIP KUMAR SASMAL ..... PCtitiONCT VCTSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ""' Respondent
Through: Mr.B.V.Niren, CGSC, for respondent No.1 to 4.
W.P.(c) No.7297, 72g8,72gg &73Otl2OL1 O a, 2011:DHC:16170-DB
\L I
SUNIL GAUR r4
ORDER os'10.20LL
JUDGMENT
1. petitioners do not dispute being enrolled in the Indian Army and allocated to the Army Air Defence, which would be the parent Arm of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioners were sent to the Para Army Air Defence. The applicable Army Order readsthatthoseservinginParaAirDefencemaybereverted z\ to their Parent Regiment/Corps.
2. Petitioners have been so reverted.
3. Service matters falling within the domain of Armed Forces Tribunal have been defined vide clause (o) of Section 3 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, and we would highlight that vide clause (ii) of para (o) of Section 3, reversion related disputes have to be treated as a service dispute adjudicable before the Armed Forced Tribunal.
4. Accordingly we hold that the petitioners have to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute raised by them pertaining to their reversion to the parent regiment.
5. Observing as above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
6. Dasti. '';-6,.'Sffr| (l0 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J ocroBER 05, 2OL[1] pkb
GAUR, J