Smt Sudha Sharma wdo Late Nanak Chand Sharma vs UOI & Others on 21 April 2026

O R D E R

21.04.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the Applicant has filed the present OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant her Special Family Pension wef 25.01.1970 on demise of her husband instead of Ordinary Family Pension and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. The brief facts as enunciated by the Applicant are that her husband was enrolled in General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) on 16.06.1966. While serving with 2 Surfacing Company GREF Project Swastik, her husband died in an accident on 24.01.1970 while on bonafide Government duty. His death was considered as Attributable to Military Service by the concerned Head of Office at GREF Records and case for grant of Special Family Pension was processed with PCDA (P), who arbitrarily granted Ordinary Family Pension to the Applicant instead of Special Family Pension. The Applicant made representations as also issued Legal Notice for grant of Special Family Pension, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. While replying thereto, theRespondents have raised preliminary objection on the grounds that this Hon’ble Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the service disputes pertaining to Border Road Organisation (BRO) personnel. In support of their claim, the Respondents have placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dt 02.02.2017 in Civil Appeal No 10131/2016 arising out of SLP (C) No 31556/2013 in the case of Mohammed Ansari Vs UOI & Ors.

3. Relevant paragraphs of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mohammed Ansari (Supra) reads as under:- “28. Thus, the Court clearly held that merely because the respondent is subjected to the 1950 Act would not by itself be sufficient to conclude that the tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with any case brought before it by such a person. It would depend upon the subject matter which is brought before the tribunal and the tribunal is also required to determine as to whether such a subject matter falls within the definition of “service matter” as contained in Section 3(o) of the 2007 Act.

29. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to SRO 329. Schedule A thereof, as stated earlier, carves out certain exceptions. Certain provisions of the 1950 Act i.e. Sections 10, 11, 13 to 17, 20, 22 to 24 [falling under Chapter III of the 1950 Act dealing with commission, appointment and enrolment], Section 43, 44 [falling under Chapter VI offences’ viz. fraudulent enrolment and false answers on enrolment respectively and clauses (d), (e), (f), (g) and (k) of Sections 71, 74 to 78, clauses 9e), (f) and (j) of Section 80 and clause (a) of Section 84, falling under Chapter VII punishment] have been exempted in their application to the civilian members of the GREF, for the civilian personnel of GREF are not commissioned or enrolled or appointed under the 1950 Act and they are not, therefore, members of the ‘regular Army’ as defined in Section 3(xxi) of the 1950 Act. It is for this reason that certain provisions of the 1950 Act as set out in Schedule B of the SRO 329 have been modified in their application to the members of the GREF. This is fortified by the fact that the GREF personnel are appointed as civilian component of the force in various appointment(s)/ designation in GREF and notified with equivalent ranks in the regular army for the purpose of the 1950 Act vide SRO 1001 dated 20th May, 1961.

30. In view of the statutory framework, it is demonstrable that the 1950 Act and the Army Rules, 1954 have been applied to civilian personnel of the GREF only for the purpose of discipline. The reasons are obvious. The GREF is a force raised and maintained under the authority of the Central Government, its units are set up on the lines of the Indian Army, it works with and under close coordination with regular army in border areas, facilitates the Indian Army to carry out its operational role, etc. Hence, it has been felt appropriate that the 1950 Act should be made applicable to a force raised and maintained by the Central Government as considered necessary in the interest of discipline. The issue can be perceived from a different perspective. The GREF personnel are subjected by legislative scheme to dual disciplinary control, and such an arrangement is permissible as has been held in R. Viswan, (1983) 3 SCC 401. When the offence is such that the provisions of the 1950 Act, as extended to GREF, apply for the purpose of discipline, it will be open to the competent disciplinary authority under the1950 Act, to proceed against the delinquent under its provisions, and if found guilty, award appropriate punishment. In this context, we may give an example. If an offence is committed in relation to an enemy, offences on active service, mutiny, desertion, disobedience, etc., considering the nature and gravity of the offence, it may warrant severe action against the delinquent by way of trial by a court martial. In other disciplinary cases, the competent authority may decide to proceed under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 in which the maximum permissible punishment is only ‘dismissal from service’.

31. In this backdrop, jurisdiction of the tribunal has to be determined. As is seen, the 2007 Act has been made applicable to persons subject to the 1950 Act, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950, the retired personnel subject to these Acts including their dependants, heirs and successors insofar as it relates to their service matters. The tribunal constituted in terms of Sections 4 and 5 thereof, is vested with twin jurisdiction viz., jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matters as provided in Section 14 and the jurisdiction in matter of appeal against courts martial under Section 15 of the Act.

32. The situation insofar as jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to hear the appeals arising out of court martial verdicts qua GREF personnel, however, appears to stand on a different footing. It is because the provisions of Chapter VI i.e. offences, Chapter VII i.e. punishment, Chapter X i.e. ‘courts martial’ etc. apply with full force, subject to minor exceptions and modifications here and there, as applied to GREF. Therefore, the provisions of the 1950 Act dealing with various punishments inflicted by way of courts martial qua GREF personnel as applied can be agitated before the AFT and the AFT shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals arising out of courts martial verdicts. There can be no doubt that in respect of said matters the AFT shall have jurisdiction. Denial of jurisdiction to the said tribunal would be contrary to the 1950 Act and the provisions engrafted under the 2007 Act. To elaborate, right to approach the AFT by the personnel of GREF who are tried by a court martial held under the very same Act has to be recognised. At the same time, if the punishment is imposed on GREF personnel by way of departmental proceedings held under the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 then obviously the same cannot be agitated before the AFT since the penalty in such cases will not be one under the 1950 Act but will be under the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The distinction, as the law exists in the present, has to be done.

33. From the aforesaid, the legal position that emerges is that AFT shall have jurisdiction (i) to hear appeals arising out of courts martial verdicts qua GREF personnel. To this extent alone the AFT shall have jurisdiction. At the same time if the punishment is imposed on GREF personnel by way of departmental proceedings held under the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 the same cannot be agitated before the AFT and (ii) AFT shall have no jurisdiction to hear and decide grievances of GREF personnel relating to their terms and conditions of service or alternatively put ‘service matters’.”

4. In the instant case, the Applicant’s husband died while on bonafide Government duty in the year 1970 and the Applicant has been granted pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules. The Applicant has agitated the issue of grant of Special Family Pension instead of Ordinary Family Pension without specifying the provisions under which the prayer has been made and that too, after a passage of 53 years. Since the present case is not an Appeal against any order of the Court Martial and the Applicant has been granted pensionary benefits under the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present OA. Hence, the OA is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, the Applicant is at liberty to avail legal recourse before the appropriate forum.

6. The OA is disposed off accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

7. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-