S.S. Satheesachandran v. Union of India and Ors

W.P(C).18251/2019 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 19TH VAISAKHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 18251 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.P.N.SANKARANARAYANA PILLA, RESIDING AT SWATHI, HOUSE NO.32/2278, ORIENT PARK, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-682023. BY ADVS. SHYAM PADMAN SRI.C.M.ANDREWS SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH SMT.IRENE PARAMEL ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, ROOM NO.308-1, 'B' WING, SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110011. 2 ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, WEST BLOCK-VII, SECTOR-1, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 3 ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI, BRISTOW HOUSE, KJ HERSCHEL ROAD, KOCHI-682001, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADVS. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, THE COURT ON 09.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).18251/2019 2 ## **SUNIL THOMAS, J.** ================= ## **W.P(C).No.18251 of 2019** ================= Dated this the 9[th] day of May, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petitioner is a former Judge of the High Court of Kerala who demitted the office on superannuation on 02.03.2014. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was appointed as a Judicial Member of Armed Forces Tribunal (Regional Bench) Kochi, on 11.03.2015, by Ext.P1. On completion of his term in the Tribunal, he was relieved on 02.03.2017 as per the prescribed provisions. 2. Armed Forces Tribunal has been constituted under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Section 6 of the Act provides for qualification for appointment of Chairperson and other members of the Tribunal. Section 3 of the Act refers to the terms of employment of Judicial member or the administrative member . The service conditions of the Chairperson and members of the Tribunal are governed by the provisions of the Armed Force Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Services of Chairpersons and Members) Rules 2009, (hereinafter referred as 'AFT Rules, 2009'). Rule 3 of the said Rules deals with the pay and allowances, leave, pension, provident fund, travelling allowance, leave travel W.P(C).18251/2019 3 concession, accommodation etc, to the Chairperson and members of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The petitioner claims that, by virtue of the above provision, petitioner is entitled for salary and allowances and other perquisites as are available to the sitting Judge of a High Court and as provided in the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act 1954. According to the petitioner, though the respondents are statutorily bound to disburse the retirement benefits for the service rendered by the petitioner as Judicial Member, there was culpable default and the transfer grant payable to him was not disbursed. Though an application was filed claiming encashment of earned leave, gratuity and other retirement benefits for the service rendered in AFT, by Ext.P2, those were rejected. In reply to Ext.P2, the third respondent forwarded Ext.P3(a). By Ext.P3(a) communication, second respondent directed the third respondent, AFT to ascertain the number of days of leave of encashment availed by the petitioner while functioning as a Judge of High Court of Kerala. Later, he received communication dated 26.12.2018 and another communication, which are produced as Exts.P4 and P4(a). He was informed that, he has already availed the benefit of leave encashment for the maximum period of 300 days on retirement as Judge of the High Court of Kerala. According to the petitioner, the decision of the second respondent Armed Forces W.P(C).18251/2019 4 Tribunal, Principal Bench denying the encashment of earned leave of the petitioner on the ground that he has availed the maximum benefit from the High Court of Kerala is unsustainable and unethical. The service rendered by the petitioner in Armed Forces Tribunal as a Judicial Member cannot be considered as a continuation of his service as a Judge in the High Court of Kerala. The benefit of earned leave availed by the petitioner, when he retired from the service as Judge, High Court of Kerala cannot be clubbed while considering the same benefit entitled to him for the service he rendered as Judicial Member of the Armed Forces Tribunal claiming that, petitioner being a Judicial Member of the Tribunal has a unique status in as much as the members constituting such Tribunal are governed fully by the service conditions applicable to the High Court Judges in terms of High Court Judges, (salaries and other conditions of service) Act 1954. While so, the petitioner received a letter dated 04.12.2018 directing him to remit an amount of Rs.3,12,960/- in the Government Account as M.R.O. towards the excess amount allegedly drawn by the petitioner prior to the fixation under 7[th] Pay revision. According to the petitioner, if a retired Judge of a High Court, who is in receipt of, or has received or has become entitled to receive any retirement benefits by way of pension, gratuity, employer's contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund or other forms of W.P(C).18251/2019 5 retirement benefits is appointed as a Judicial member, the pay of such member shall be reduced by the gross amount of pension or employer's contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund or any other f AFT Rules, 2009 orm of retirement benefits, if any (Except pension equivalent of retirement gratuity) drawn or to be drawn by him. The petitioner was accordingly getting reduced amount of pay as mentioned in Rule 3(c). But the implementation of the 7[th] CPC with effect from 01.01.2016 was given effect to only in January 2018 and as such, petitioner continued to receive the pay fixed previously, during his service as member AFT. While so, the petitioner received a communication from the second respondent Principal Bench to remit Rs.3,12,960/- purported to be outstanding due to alleged overpayment from 01.01.2016 to 02.03.2017. The communication was produced as Ext.P6. 3. Petitioner has approached this Court contending that he is entitled to encashment of earned leave and gratuity for the service he rendered as Judicial Member of the AFT. He sought a direction commanding the third respondent to pass an appropriate order on Ext.P1 application of the petitioner, within a stipulated time, to issue a writ or directing commanding the second and third respondents to adjust the amount to be recovered from the petitioner as mentioned in Exts.P5 to P7 communications from the W.P(C).18251/2019 6 gratuity and encashment of earned leave of the petitioner for the service he rendered as Judicial Member of Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Cochin and also to declare that the recovery proceedings initiated against him as per Exts.P5 to P7 is AFT Rules, 2009 issued by respondents 2 and 3, was improper, illegal and unsustainable. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a detailed counter affidavit traversing the various allegations and disputing the claims set up by the petitioner. It was specifically contended that the writ petitioner was not entitled to leave surrender, pension, gratuity and several other claims made by the writ petitioner. It was also contended that, in the light of the various statutory provisions, petitioner was not entitled for the reliefs. It was also claimed that the petitioner was granted the transfer grant which was admissible. There was an excess payment quantified at Rs.3,92,960/-, which was to be recovered from the petitioner through M.R.O. However, after adjusting the claim of Rs.80,000/- towards the temporary duty in respect of the petitioner, which was payable to him on demitting the office of the Judicial Member, claim was made to recover the balance amount of Rs.3,12,960/-. Accordingly, it was contended that, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned W.P(C).18251/2019 7 ASG on behalf of the Central Government Examined the records. 6. The essential facts are not in dispute. One of the specific contentions set up by the petitioner was that, the terms of office in the Armed Forces Tribunal was not a case of re-employment or a case of continuation of the service of High Court service. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to all the benefits independently conferred on him by virtue of Rule 3 of the AFT Rules, 2009. 7. The nature of employment of a Honourable Judge in different Boards and Tribunals was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in **V.S.Malimath v. Union of India & Anr. [(2001)4 SCC 31],** by a three Judges Bench. Though it related to the nature of engagement in the Human rights Commission, the Supreme Court, after referring to the various provisions considered the question whether the appointment of the petitioner therein as the Member of the Human Rights Commission tantamounted to re-employment. Supreme Court held that, in the absence of any definition of the expression “re-employment” and applying the common parlance theory, the conclusion was irresistible that the said appointment would tantamount to “re-employment”. In the light of the above decision, it can safely be concluded that, in the case at hand also, the employment of the petitioner in the Armed Forces Tribunal cannot be W.P(C).18251/2019 8 considered as a continuation of the earlier service but one of “reemployment”. 6. The service conditions of the Chairperson and members of the Armed Forces Tribunal are regulated by the AFT Rules 2009. Rule 3(c) is the relevant provision applicable when a serving or retired Judge is appointed as Judicial Member or to an officer in the three service appointed as an Administrative Member. It reads as follows: “When a serving or retiring Judge of a High Court is appointed as Judicial Member of the Tribunal or when any person from the three services is appointed as Administrative Member of the Tribunal, he shall be entitled to salary, allowances and to other perquisites as are available to the sitting Judge of a High Court and as provided in the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954 and these shall apply mutatis mutandis along with rules made thereunder as amended from time to time”. 9. Provided that in case the retired Judge of a High Court or a person from the three services, is in receipt of, or has received or has become entitled to receive any retirement benefits by way of pension, gratuity, employer's contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund or other forms of retirement benefits, the pay of such Member shall be reduced by the gross amount of pension or employer's contribution to the W.P(C).18251/2019 9 Contributory Provident Fund or any other from of retirement benefits, if any (except pension equivalent of retirement gratuity), drawn or to be drawn by him. 10. By virtue of Rule 3, in the case of retired Judge of the High Court, he shall be entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites as are available to the sitting Judge of a High Court as provided in the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954 and they apply mutatis mutandis along with Rules made thereunder. Evidently, by virtue of Rule 3(c), the service conditions available to a sitting High Court Judge as under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954 was made applicable. 11. One of the main claim set up by the petitioner was in relation to the cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of his period of earned leave to his credit. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contended that the petitioner was entitled for the encashment of leave. According to the petitioner, in terms of High Court Judges (Salaries and other conditions of service) Act 1954, the leave account of the petitioner for the period of his service as Judicial Member, Armed Force Tribunal was required to be maintained and on cessation of his service, cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of period of earned leave at his credit, to the extent of maximum W.P(C).18251/2019 10 period prescribed for encashment of such leave under the All India Services (Leave) Rules 1955 was liable to be released to him. Rule 20A of the All India Services (Leave) Rules 1955 dealing with payment of cash equivalent in case of retirement or death and that Rule stipulates that the cash equivalent of leave salary standing in the credit on which he ceases to be a member of the service subject to a maximum of 300 days is payable and such leave salary shall also include Dearness Allowance. but shall not include any other allowances. According to the petitioner, in reckoning of the leave account of the petitioner for the services rendered as Judicial Member in AFT, he is governed by Section 4(2) of the High Court Judges (salaries and other Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the claim of cash equivalent of leave salary thereof is governed by Rule 20A of the All India Services (Leave) Rules 1955 as stipulated under Section 4A of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Other Conditions of Service)Act, 1954. 12. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the second respondent denying the encashment of earned leave of the petitioner on the ground that, he has availed maximum benefit from the Government of Kerala was unsustainable and unethical. The service rendered by the petitioner in the AFT as Judicial Member cannot be considered as a continuation of his service as Judge in the High Court of W.P(C).18251/2019 11 Kerala. The benefit of earned leave availed by the petitioner when he retired from the service as Judge, High Court of Kerala cannot be clubbed while considering the same benefit entitled to him for the service he rendered as Judicial Member of the AFT. According to the petitioner, since the service of the petitioner as a Judicial Member of AFT was not a continuation of his service as Judge of High Court of Kerala, there is absolutely no need to reckon what are the benefits he availed when he retired from the service as Judge of High Court while calculating the earned leave for encashment for services rendered in AFT. It was also contended that the maximum limit of 300 days of earned leave, availed by the petitioner while serving as Judge of High Court of Kerala was fully availed after clubbing the earned leave during his service in the Higher Judiciary also. Nowhere it was mentioned that, Judicial Member of AFT was disentitled for encashment of earned leave, if he has availed the benefit for the service he rendered as Judge of the High Court. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal under the Act has a unique status and the members constituting the Tribunal are strictly and fully governed fully by the service conditions applicable to the High Court Judges in terms of High Court Judges (Salaries and Other Conditions of Service) Act 1954. 13. Answering the above contentions, respondents contended that, W.P(C).18251/2019 12 in terms of S.4 of the Act of 1954, for the period of his service as Judicial Member in the Tribunal and on cessation of his service as such, petitioner was entitled to cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit, to the extent of maximum period prescribed for encashment of such leave in terms of both AIS and CCS leave Rules, but the said benefit was available to him only in the event of his not availing the cash to the maximum period of 300 days at the time of his retirement as a Judge of the High Court. Since the petitioner has already availed the benefit of maximum period of 300 days for encashment of leave as prescribed under AIS and CCS Leave Rules, further encashment of leave was not admissible to him. 14. Referring to S.2 of the High Court Judges Travelling Allowance Rules 1956, it was pointed out that the conditions of service of a Judge of a High Court, for which, no express provision has been made in the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, shall be, and shall from the commencement of the Constitution be deemed to have been, determined by the Rules for the time being applicable to a member of the Indian Administrative Service holding the rank of Secretary to the Government of the State in which the principal seat of the High Court was situated. Rule 4 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and W.P(C).18251/2019 13 Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members) Rules 2009 provided that, matter relating to the terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson or Members of the Tribunal with respect to which no express provision has been made in these rules, shall be determined by the rules and orders for the time being applicable to a Secretary to the Government of India. According to the respondent, Rule 3 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members) Rules 2009 in unequivocal terms provided that, a Judicial Member or Administrative Member was entitled to salary, allowances and other perquisites as were available to the sitting Judges of a High Court as provided in the 1954 Rules, but it was equally true that the said Rule does not say anything about the admissibility of pension. Notwithstanding that, the matter was referred to the Ministry of Defence, which in turn informed vide letter dated 20.08.2015 that the matter was examined in consultation with LA(Defence). It was reported that by virtue of Rule 3 of the AFT Rules 2009, Member was entitled to salaries, allowances and perquisites as are available to the sitting Judge of the High Court. However, the provision does not say anything about the pension. 15. As mentioned above, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Malimath's case (supra)** has categorically asserted that the case W.P(C).18251/2019 14 of engagement of the retired Judge in identical Tribunals amounts to a reemployment. Further, 3(c) of the Act specifically refers to the terms of employment of a Member of AFT is co-related to the terms of employment and the salary allowances and such other perquisites referable to a sitting High Court Judge as provided in the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954 and that it will apply mutatis mutandis along with rules made thereunder as amended from time to time. Evidently, the benefit available to a member of the Tribunal cannot be divorced from the provisions relating to the perquisites payable to a sitting Judge. By virtue of this co-relation, the contention of the petitioner that, he is separately entitled for leave surrender, irrespective of the maximum number of days he has already surrendered as a judge of the High Court cannot be accepted. Further, when a cap is fixed as 300 days, it is inconceivable as to how this cap will be taken care of or in the case of a service in the AFT and whether he will again be entitled to the leave surrender subject to the maximum limit of 300 days. Such an interpretation does not stand to reason in the absence of clear Rules or a binding precedent. 16. The petitioner claimed that, he was entitled to the gratuity for the service rendered as Judicial Member of the AFT in terms of Sec.17A of W.P(C).18251/2019 15 the High Court Judges (salaries and Other Conditions of Service 1954. Retirement gratuity rendered as a retiring judge of the High Court applies only with the maximum sum payable as gratuity and that alone . The gratuity of petitioner as Member of AFT has to be calculated and disbursed in terms of Sec.17A(3)(2) of the High Court Judges (salaries and Other Conditions of Service 1954, which states that the amount of gratuity shall be calculated on the basis of the 10 days salary for each completed six months period of service as a Judge. 17. In this connection, Sec.4(A) of the 1954 Act, Rule 7 of the Pension Rules, and Rule 20A(1) of the All India Services (Leave) Rules 1955 and Rule 39 (6)A(iii) of the CSS Rules were heavily relied on by the respondents to contend that the petitioner was not entitled for leave encashment. Sec.4A of the 1954 Act provides that a Judge shall be entitled in his entire service including the period of service rendered in a pensionable post under the Union or State or on re-employment, if any, to claim the cash equivalent of leave salary on his retirement in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit, to the extent of the maximum period prescribed for encashment of such leave under the All India Service (Leave) Rules, 1955. 18. Rule 20A(1) of the All India Services (Leave) Rules 1955 reads W.P(C).18251/2019 16 that, where a member retires from the service whether on attaining the age of superannuation or under any other provisions, the Government shall sou moto sanction to him or his family as the case may be, cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of earned leave, subject to cap of 300 days cap. It was provided that the cash equivalent shall be equal to the leave salary as admissible for earned leave and /or equal to the leave salary for his half pay leave plus dearness allowance admissible on the leave salary for the first 300 days. In the light of above, the claim for leave surrender does not appear to be sustainable. 19. Regarding the gratuity, the respondents relied on the decision in **Malimath's case.** It was specifically held that, on the basis of the provisions applicable to the Human Rights Commission that the conditions of service of chairperson, there is no express provision regarding the gratuity. However, in the case at hand, Rule 3(c) specifically provides for the salary allowances and other provisions as are available to the sitting Judge. In the light of the above, it is evident that the petitioner is entitled for Gratuity for the period, during which, he remained as a member of the AFT subject to the Rules. The respondents are bound to calculate it and to release it to the petitioner. 20. The petitioner received a letter dated 04.12.2018 informing that W.P(C).18251/2019 17 an excess amount of Rs.3,12,960/- was drawn to him prior to the fixation under the 7[th] pay revision. According to the petitioner, by virtue of Rule 3 of the AFT, Rules 2009, the pay of such member shall be reduced by the gross amount of pension or employees contribution to the contributory PF or any other form of retirement benefits, if any (except pension equivalent of retirement gratuity) drawn or to be drawn by him. The petitioner herein shall be accordingly getting reduced amount of pay as mentioned in Rule 3(c) of the AFT Rules. According to the petitioner, implementation of 7[th] pay revision with effect from 2015, was given effect in January 2016 and as such, petitioner continued to receive the previous pay during his service in AFT. From a letter dated 04.12.2018 of the first respondent, it was revealed that, at a later stage, steps were initiated for the recovery of the above sum. It was also informed that, transfer amount of Rs.80,000/which the petitioner was entitled to, has already been adjusted. 21. In reply to the above claim, it was explained that the petitioner demitted the office of Judicial Member of Tribunal on 02.03.2017 prior to the issue of notification 27.01.2018. The pay of the petitioner should refixed at the rate of Rs.2,25,000/- per month retrospectively with effect from 01.01.2016, by order dated 21.02.2018. Hence, subsequent to the implementation of recommendation of 7[th] pay revision, instead of 18 W.P(C).18251/2019 Rs.40,000/- per month, Rs.1,12,500/- per month was to be reduced as pension from the pay of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2016. Since PPO in respect of the petitioner was issued on 06.09.2018, revised pension from Rs.40,000/- per month to Rs.1,12,500/- from 01.01.2016, the reduction of pension of Rs.1,12,500/- from the pay of the petitioner could be effected only after issuance of PPO dated 06.09.2018. Accordingly, due and drawn statement from 01.01.2016 to 02.03.2017 was prepared showing the arrears as 3,92,960/-, on account of over payment made to the petitioner. After adjusting Rs.80,000/- due, the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,12,960/-. 22. Though a feeble attempt was made to contend that the calculation was wrong, there is apparently nothing on record to indicate that the amount of Rs.3,12,960/- is not recoverable from the petitioner. Further, the claim of Rs.80,000/- for the temporary duty was sanctioned though adjusted against the amount due. Hence, this claim does not appear to the sustainable. 23. By virtue of clause 3(c) of the AFT Rules 2009, petitioner is entitled for all the allowances, benefits and perquisites evidently, except were specifically referred to above. Petitioner is entitled for all other benefits. Hence, respondents shall consider a request made by the W.P(C).18251/2019 19 petitioner and decide the entire amount due to the petitioner by virtue of by Rule 3(c) of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2009 and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The recovery of an amount of Rs.3,12,960/- by virtue of Exts. P5 to P7 will stand deferred till that time. Writ petition is allowed in part to the above extent. **Sd/-** **SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE** ## **Sbna/** W.P(C).18251/2019 20 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18251/2019** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||3.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.2.2018| ||SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.10.2018 OF| ||THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||16.8.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.12.2018 OF| ||THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.12.2018| ||ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.12.2018| ||ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||11.6.2018 OF THE AREA ACCOUNTS OFFICE (NAVY)| ||KOCHI TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||14.9.2018 OF THE AREA ACCOUNTS OFFICE (NAVY)| ||KOCHI TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.2.2019| ||ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| 21 ## W.P(C).18251/2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.3.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE. EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE FINANCE OFFICER. EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSING THE REGISTRARS OF ALL OUTLYING REGIONAL BENCHES, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.14028/1/2017-ESTT (L) DATED 27.06.2017. EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE DATED 27.01.2018