Smti. Sarmistha Sharma vs Union of India and Others

The petitioner, while claiming herself to be the widow of Late Nanda Gopal Sharma, who was working with the Indian Navy and retired in the

year 1983, seeks to maintain this writ petition on her grievance against the denial of family pension.

The petitioner submits that her husband, during his lifetime after retirement, was regularly drawing pension but he expired on 08.08.2012 leaving

behind herself, a son and a daughter. The petitioner submits that in her claim for family pension, earlier a dispute regarding her name was sought to

be raised to which, the Zilla Sainik Board ultimately reported that her nickname was stated in the service record but thereafter, she was asked to

produce an Authenticated Certificate from the District Magistrate/ Commissioner of the area in support of her claim for family pension; and, after

submission of the certificate, the Naval Pension Office, under its communication dated 25.07.2016, stated that such a certificate could not be

considered to be a valid legal order and she was asked to obtain legal direction/judgment from the competent court of law and not other

judicial/quasi judicial bodies. The petitioner submits that such a communication remains entirely unjustified and she is left with no alternative but to

approach this Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents has, at the outset, raised objections that the matter as involved in this petition is a service matter over which

the Armed Forces Tribunal is having the jurisdiction of virtue of Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Learned counsel for the

petitioner though does not dispute the jurisdiction of the Tribunal but, submits that in view of the contents of the impugned communication dated

25.07.216, whereby the authority concerned has asked the petitioner to obtain direction/judgment, as regards the identity of the person as legal

heir/beneficiary, from the competent court of law while stating that such direction shall not be obtained from judicial/quasi judicial bodies, the

petitioner is left with no alternative but to approach this Court.

This Court is clearly of the view that an executive authority by its communication or any proposition could neither invest a Court/Tribunal with

any jurisdiction nor divest a Court/Tribunal of its jurisdiction as conferred by law. The observations in the impugned communication dated

25.07.2016 are also required to be understood in its context where it appears that the authority concerned was not satisfied with the certificate

issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong and asked the petitioner to obtain a direction/judgment from the competent court of law and not

other judicial/quasi judicial bodies. It cannot be said that the authority concerned has deprived the petitioner of ventilating her legal grievance

before a competent Court/Tribunal.

Having said so and when this Court finds that the Armed Forces Tribunal is having the jurisdiction to deal with the entire matter including the

grievance of the petitioner against the impugned communication dated 25.07.2016, it appears appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the regular

remedy before the Tribunal concerned and there appears no reason to entertain the matter in the writ jurisdiction of this Court at this stage.

In view of the above, exercise of writ jurisdiction in this matter is declined. However, the petitioner is left free to take recourse of appropriate

remedies in accordance with law.

It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced on the merits of the case either way; and the entire matter is left open for consideration in the

appropriate forum in accordance with law.