Lt. Col. Samir Kumar Singh v. Union of India

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant petition has been filed with the following prayers: “1) Issue a writ of mandamus declaring that compulsory salary deductions towards the Army Group Insurance Fund (AGIF), in the absence of legislation enacted by Parliament under Article 33 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional, arbitrary, and void as being violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A; and in the alternative, issue a writ of mandamus directing that contributions to AGIF be made voluntary, granting the Petitioner an opportunity to opt out of further deductions if he so chooses, without prejudice to his entitlement to refunds, reconciliations, and benefits on past compulsory contributions.

2) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents No. 1 to 3 to reconcile the Petitioner’s AGIF account on the basis of his compulsory contributions since 1999, and to refund the quantified shortfall of approximately ₹70,00,000 (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) in his maturity payout, together with applicable interest and corporate benefits such as bonus and surplus allocations.

3) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.3 (Controller General of Defence Accounts) to undertake a detailed reconciliation of the Petitioner’s housing and vehicle loan accounts, to undo the arbitrary “resets” of instalment counters, and to refund the excess recoveries of about ₹15,00,000 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) wrongfully deducted from his salary, with interest.

4) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents No. 1 to 3 to furnish to the Petitioner, within a time-bound period, all relevant records including signed loan agreements, sanction letters, repayment schedules, amortisation tables, reconciled ledgers, and the computation sheet relating to the Petitioner’s maturity payout.

5) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) to frame and notify a Transparency and Member-Protection Code for AGIF, mandating annual publication of audited financial statements, disclosure of crediting rates and surplus policies, transparent loan governance rules, disclosure of investment risks, and a time-bound grievance redressal mechanism.

6) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to arrange an independent audit of AGIF, either by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or by a court-appointed auditor, covering deductions, investments, maturity computations, and loan recoveries, and to publish a member-facing summary of such audit.

7) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents No. 2 and 3 to reconcile and rectify all improper recoveries from the Petitioner’s accounts and refund or adjust the excess amounts with interest.

8) Issue a writ of mandamus awarding to the Petitioner compensation of ₹50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) for wrongful recoveries, arbitrary denial of corporate benefits, and sustained violation of his constitutional rights.

9) Issue a writ of mandamus directing disclosure and audit of all AGIF investments in private trusts and special purpose vehicles, including the Milestone Army Navy Trust, and ordering restitution of contributors’ funds found to have been unlawfully deployed.

10) Grant liberty to the Petitioner to seek further or consequential reliefs upon disclosure of records or in light of the final judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ravi Khokhar. ”

3. An objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition has been raised by the learned counsel representing the Union of India, Mr. Amit Tewari, learned CGSC and Mr. Anjali Vohra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 stating that for the prayers made in the petition, the petitioner must approach the Armed Forces Tribunal by invoking its jurisdiction and accordingly, in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘AFT Act’), this petition may not be maintainable.

4. Replying to the said preliminary objections, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is challenging the Army Group Insurance Fund (AGIF) on the ground that it is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, therefore, the petition would be maintainable for the reason that the constitutional validity of the AGIF cannot be gone into by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) by entertaining a petition under Section 14 of the AFT Act. He has further attempted to argue that the challenge to AGIF and seeking declaration as to its constitutional validity is not an issue which can be said to be in relation to service matters of the petitioner, hence AFT will have no jurisdiction for adjudication of the prayers made by the petitioner.

5. The issue raised in this petition is no more res integra which has been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Sqn. Ldr. Neelam Chahar vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 9139/2019) decided on 26.05.2023 and other connected matters, where it has clearly held that challenge to the ‘Air Headquarter Human Resource Policy No.03/2013” dated 28.08.2013, squarely falls within the terms of ‘vires of statutory provisions’ as held in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and accordingly, it has been further held by the Full Bench that the Armed Forces Tribunal is competent to entertain such a petition. Para 12 of the Full Bench in Sqn. Ldr. Neelam Chahar (supra) is extracted below: