Jurisdiction In Service Matters Related To “Armed Forces Of Union”- Which Forum To Approach?

The evolving concept of justice has led to the development of diverse mechanisms through which individuals and entities may seek redress. Historically, dispute resolution in India began with informal and community-based systems such as the Panchayat justice mechanism. Over time, these traditional forms gradually gave way to more formal judicial institutions. However, the conventional judicial system proved increasingly inadequate to address the rapidly growing volume of disputes brought before it. The mounting pendency of cases and persistent delays emerged as significant obstacles to the realization of speedy and effective justice.

In addition to the overwhelming caseload, another major challenge lay in the lack of specialized expertise among judicial officers in matters requiring technical or domain-specific knowledge. Recognizing these limitations, the Government of India has adopted a continuous and evolving approach to reform. This has involved not only strengthening the existing judicial framework but also establishing specialized judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, such as tribunals, designed to adjudicate particular categories of disputes more efficiently and with the required technical expertise.

However, the proliferation of such forums has also given rise to complex jurisdictional challenges. Litigants often find themselves approaching an incorrect forum due to ambiguity regarding jurisdiction. This frequently results in unnecessary procedural delays, wastage of valuable time, and considerable financial and mental hardship for the aggrieved parties. Similar jurisdictional complications are frequently observed in service matters, particularly those involving personnel of central armed police forces and other Union organizations, such as the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), and the Railway Protection Force (RPF). In such cases, the selection of an inappropriate forum often prolongs the resolution process and adds to the difficulties faced by the affected individuals. This article tends to address this issue in the light of the provisions of the law as well as the law as adjudicated by the Constitutional Courts of India.

What forum should a petitioner approach?

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The Administrative Tribunals Act¹ (hereinafter referred to as “AT Act, 1985” was enacted in 1985 under the ambit of Part XIVA² (Tribunals- Art. 323A – 323B) of the Constitution of India(hereinafter referred to as “COI, 1950”). The AT Act 1985 was enacted with the objective:

“to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of [any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government in pursuance of article 323A of the Constitution] and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

The above objective inculcates recruitment and conditions of public services with certain bars to it which are dealt in the Section 2 of the AT Act, 1985. The said Act does not apply on members of tri-services (i.e. Navy, Military and Air Force), any other “armed forces of Union”, any officer or servant of Supreme Court, High Court of any state or Union Territory or any other subordinate Court or any person appointed in secretarial staff of parliament or state legislature. Out of these bars, the most controversial is Section 2(a) which talks about the “armed forces of Union”. If we clearly look into the text of S. 2(a), it is clear that it is inspired from the Entry 2 of the Union List prescribed in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution which states:

The Preamble/Objective of the AT Act, 1985 talks about Recruitment and Conditions of Service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with following set of categories:

1. Union Affairs or
2. State Affairs or
3. Other authority within Indian territory or
4. Under control of Govt. of India or
5. Of any Corporation or Society controlled by Government in furtherance of Art.323A

The interpretational analysis of objective of the AT Act, 1985 when done in context of Section 2(a) of the said Act, following inferences can be drawn:

1. The bar imposed is only in context of “armed forces”.
2. These armed forces should be of Union.
3. And the issue/dispute at hand shall be in context of “recruitment and conditions of service”.

However, these interpretations should not be interpreted in literal sense as the scope of this interpretation further depend upon various elements such as parent statutory provisions of such organization, any other exception prescribed by law, etc. Moreover, the preamble end with the line “for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto” which makes its interpretation liberal and expands its scope.

Armed Forces of Union

The key issue which arises in case of the services which fall under domain of term “any other armed forces of Union”. Organizations such as CRPF, CISF directly come under the Ministry of Home Affairs or RPF which lies under Ministry of Railways, which make it obvious that the jurisdiction of members of these organizations would naturally lie to CAT. However, the scenario is much different in real sense as the bar which mentions “armed forces” of union has been interpreted in numerous ways.

In 1987⁴, an aggrieved person reached Supreme Court via Article 32 in matter related to termination of his services by impugned orders passed by the Commandant, CISF, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, to which the Supreme Court permitted the appellants to withdraw petition with liberty to file it before CAT, Patna. However, CAT refused to entertain the matter as the matter related to the post which comes under ambit of “armed forces of the union” and at last the matter was adjudged by the High Court.

However, in 1994⁵ when two aggrieved persons who were lower division clerks (LDCs) in Indo Tibetan Border Protection Force (ITBP) reached Apex Court on a dispute related to promotion of the petitioners, the question raised before SCI was that whether these persons are to be considered within ambit of “armed forces of Union” or these petitioners are to be considered as “civilians”. The Apex Court held that LDCs in the ITBP cannot be treated as “enrolled persons” or members of the armed forces of the Union. Section 6 of the relevant Act applies only to individuals formally enrolled in the Force, which refers to executive personnel such as constables under Section 2(1)(j), and not to ministerial staff like LDCs. The equivalence mentioned in the administrative manual merely serves limited administrative and financial purposes and does not erase the fundamental distinction between ministerial and executive posts. Furthermore, the recruitment of LDCs is governed by the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (Lower Division Clerk) Recruitment Rules, 1973 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, which continue to apply through Rule 187 of the 1994 Rules. Consequently, LDCs are considered civilians, and therefore their service disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

The similar dispute was also raised in respect of the members of General Reserved Engineer Force (GREF) which are involved in construction, making and maintenance of roads, in the border areas. The issue here was that whether members of GREF were entitled to relief under AT Act, 1985 or the Armed Force Tribunal Act, 2007 or under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the COI. In 1983⁶, SCI clarified that “GREF is an integral part of the Armed Forces and the members of GREF can legitimately be said to be members of the Armed Forces within the meaning of Article 33” The SCI held that although the GREF is described as a “civilian construction force” and its personnel are administratively treated as civilian employees governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, this characterization alone does not determine whether they are members of the Armed Forces. The determination must instead depend on factors such as the nature and character of GREF, its organisational structure, its functions, the role it performs in relation to the Armed Forces, and the degree of its integration and operational connection with them. Applying these criteria, the Court concluded that GREF is closely and integrally connected with the Armed Forces, and therefore its members, despite being non-combatant civilians, can legitimately be regarded as members of the Armed Forces for the purposes of Article 33 of the Constitution.

The jurisdictional issue stand at a different footing when it comes for members of Railway Police Force as in a recent case of 2019, appellants claimed right to participate in the recruitment process for appointment on the post of Chief Law Assistant Exam not as member of armed force but rather as a “railway servant” in terms of Section 10 of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 which talks about the “Officers and members of the Force to be deemed to be railway servants”. As there was a statutory presumption of assuming the petitioners a railway servant instead of armed forces, Calcutta HC held CAT to be an appropriate forum instead of High Court in this matter.⁷

The Gauhati High Court in 2010 held that Assam Rifles lie within the definition of armed forces of union despite the fact that the relevant statute does not talk about is being an armed force. HC held that the Tribunal had misinterpreted Section 2(a) of the AT Act, 1985 in concluding that the Assam Rifles is not part of the armed forces of the Union. Although the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 does not explicitly declare the force as part of the armed forces, this omission is attributable to the fact that the statute was enacted prior to independence. The Court observed that the nature of duties performed by the Assam Rifles is comparable to other paramilitary forces such as the Border Security Force and the Central Reserve Police Force, and therefore it should be treated as an armed force of the Union. Consequently, members of the Assam Rifles fall within the exclusion provided under Section 2(a) of the AT Act, 1985 meaning that the Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over their service matters. On this basis, the Tribunal's order was set aside as being passed without jurisdiction, while leaving it open for the respondents to approach the appropriate competent court.⁸

The similar issue was raised in case where petitioner was a member of special force created by state legislature, to which Andhra High Court held that CAT would have the appropriate jurisdiction as Section 2(a) talks only about armed forces of Union, which cannot be formed by the state legislature enactment.⁹

The Full Bench of CAT in respect of the CISF held that the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the AT Act, 1985 is limited to matters concerning recruitment and service conditions of specified personnel. Section 2(a) acts as an exception to Section 14 by excluding disputes related to the recruitment and service matters of members of the armed forces of the Union from the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Mere membership in the armed forces does not automatically bar the Tribunal's jurisdiction; the exclusion applies only when the dispute directly relates to recruitment or service conditions within the armed forces. Disputes unrelated to such matters may still fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.¹⁰ Similarly, in another such matter before Principal Bench, CAT, Delhi, The Tribunal held that although mere membership in the Armed Forces of the Union does not automatically exclude its jurisdiction, disputes relating to recruitment to such forces fall outside its purview under Section 2(a) of the AT Act, 1985. Since the applicants' grievance concerned recruitment and appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in CISF pursuant to a recruitment advertisement for various paramilitary forces, the matter squarely related to recruitment to the armed forces of the Union. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue and disposed of the Original Applications as not maintainable, directing the applicants to approach the appropriate forum.¹¹

In context of RPF, a recent judgement of 2026 of Delhi High COurt has again cleared the stance of jurisdiction, and held that disputes relating to recruitment to the Railway Protection Force (RPF), when raised by individuals who are not already members of the armed forces or otherwise covered by the exclusion under Section 2 of the AT Act, 1985, would fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, service-related disputes involving existing members of the RPF are excluded from the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 2(a) of the Act.¹²

The above cases showed varying approaches taken by the courts depending upon the organ of union the petitioner is subjected. In case of CISF, the Apex Court was clearly inclined towards the High Court as the appropriate forum while in case of the LDCs in ITBP, SCI segregated between civilian and armed forces of union, thus held CAT to be the appropriate forum for the dispute redressal. However, when it came to GREF/BRES/BRO, SCI relied onto “R. Viswan” (supra) judgement, where in the members of GREF despite being non-combatant civilians were regarded as Armed Forces of the Union, putting a bar on the jurisdiction of CAT and HC as the appropriate forum for dispute redressal.

Section 2(a) of the AT Act, 1985 excludes certain categories from it's application, including members of the Navy, Army, Air Force and “any other armed forces of the Union.” This exclusion has created jurisdictional ambiguity regarding organizations such as CRPF, CISF, ITBP, GREF, RPF and Assam Rifles. Courts have clarified that the applicability of the AT Act, 1985 depends on whether the personnel involved are considered members of the armed forces of the Union or civilians. For instance, in the case of CISF, disputes relating to recruitment or service conditions connected with the armed forces category have been held to fall outside CAT's jurisdiction, requiring parties to approach the High Court. Similarly, members of GREF have been regarded as part of the armed forces due to their organisational integration and functional role with the military, thereby excluding their service disputes from CAT's jurisdiction. The Gauhati High Court also held that Assam Rifles performs functions comparable to other paramilitary forces and should be treated as an armed force of the Union, which places its members outside CAT's jurisdiction.

However, courts have adopted a different approach where personnel are treated as civilians or where statutory provisions create a distinct legal status. In the case of Lower Division Clerks in the ITBP, the Supreme Court held that ministerial staff are civilians rather than enrolled members of the force, making CAT the appropriate forum for their service disputes. Similarly, in matters concerning the Railway Protection Force (RPF), the Calcutta High Court held that individuals claiming rights as “railway servants” under the Railway Protection Force Act could approach CAT, particularly in recruitment-related disputes. The Delhi High Court later clarified that recruitment disputes to the RPF raised by persons who are not already members of the force fall within CAT's jurisdiction, while service disputes of existing RPF members remain excluded under Section 2(a). Thus, the determination of CAT's jurisdiction largely depends on whether the personnel are legally classified as members of the armed forces of the Union or as civilians/railway servants and on the nature of the dispute involved.

Hence, it could be concluded from the above interpretational analysis that to know about the appropriate forum one needs to dive into the relevant statute of the agency of which he/she is aggrieved. The key factors on which the jurisdiction in such cases depend are whether the petitioner can be termed as member of civil force or armed force, whether the force is constituted by Union or State Legislature, whether the post in question is a civilian post or not, whether despite the post being the civilian post, is there any other provision of law which considers it under the ambit of armed force as is in case of GREF, etc. The aggrieved persons in such case should wisely look into these factors and has to decide whether to go for writ petition in High Court, or before Central Administrative Tribunal or any other forum.

End Notes & References:

1. The Administrative Tribunals Act , 13 of 1985.

2. The Forty-Second Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, w.e.f. 03.01.1977.

3. “Naval, Military and Air Forces, any other armed forces of Union”

4. Schedule VII, List 1, Entry 2, The Constitution of India, 1950.

5. Beda Nand Singh v. D.G. CISF, AIRONLINE 1987 SC 180.

6. Narottam Dass Beshtoo v. UOI, AIR 1995 SC 1154.

7. R. Viswan v. UOI, AIR 1983 SC 658.

8. Sarbeswar Behera v. UOI, 19th March 2019.

9. UOI v. Sh. Manoj Kumar Mongia, Gauhati High Court, WP(C) No.(SH)1 of 2010.

10. B.V. Rami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2003 (5) ALT 579.

Author is an Advocate practicing at Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court. Views are personal.