W.P.(C)/13109/2025 of LT COL SAMIR KUMAR SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS & ORS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 13109/2025, CM APPL. 53667/2025 & CM APPL. 54879/2025.

LT. COL. SAMIR KUMAR SINGH Through:

.....Petitioner Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Tewari, CGSC with Mr. Hussain Taqvi, G.P., Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Ms. Ayushi Shrivastava, Advocates and Major Anish Murlidhar (Army) for UOI. Ms. Anjali Vohra, Advocate for R-4.

% Date of Decision: 2[nd] September, 2025

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U M N T

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ: (ORAL)

1.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2.The instant petition has been filed with the following prayers:

“1) Issue 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 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 writ of mandamus directing Respondents No. 1 to 3 to reconcile

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 13109/2025 Page 1 of 5

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 writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.3 (Controller General of Defence Accounts) to undertake 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 writ of mandamus directing Respondents No. 1 to 3 to furnish to the Petitioner, within 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 writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) to frame and notify 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 time-bound grievance redressal mechanism.

6) Issue 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 court-appointed auditor, covering deductions, investments, maturity computations, and loan recoveries, and to publish member-facing summary of such audit.

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

8) Issue 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 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 seekfurther or consequential reliefs

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 13109/2025 Page 2 of 5

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 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 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 ithas 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.

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 13109/2025 Page 3 of 5

Chandra Kumar (supra) and accordingly, it has been further held by the Full Bench that the Armed Forces Tribunal is competent to entertain such petition. Para 12 of the Full Bench in Sqn. Ldr. Neelam Chahar (supra) is extracted below:

“12. In our considered view, challenge to the ‘Air Headquarter Human Resource Policy No.03/2013” dated 28.08.2013, squarely falls within the term of ‘vires of statutory provisions’ as held in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (supra). Hence, the Armed Forces Tribunal is competent to entertain the present petition and the batch of petitions which have laid challenge to various circulars, statutory rules, regulations, policies and other similar communications issued by the respondent Government and its organs from time to time.”

6.Having noted the law as enunciated by the Full Bench as to the jurisdiction of the AFT to entertain challenge to the vires of subordinate legislation, we may observe that the Army Group Insurance Fund (which is under challenge herein) has been created under Section 25 of the Army Act, 1950 read with Rule 205(b) of the Army Rules, 1954 and accordingly, the said fund and provisions made therein are referable to Section 25 of the Army Act read with Rule 205(b) of the Army Rules, 1954. The challenge to creation of such fund, its applicability and other ancillary issues on the ground of alleged violation of Articles 14, 21 or 300A of the Constitution of India can thus be gone into by the AFT in view of the decision of the aforesaid Full Bench.

7.In view of the discussion made above, the preliminary objections raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the instant writ petition is sustained.

8.The petition thus fails, which is hereby dismissed.

9.However, the petitioner will be at liberty to lay his claim before the Armed Forces Tribunal by invoking the provisions of Section 14 and/or any Armed Forces Tribunal by invoking the provisions of Section 14 and/or any

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 13109/2025 Page 4 of 5

other provision of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 10.Pending applications also stand disposed of.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

SEPTEMBER 2, 2025/kct

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 13109/2025 Page 5 of 5