Matters relating to army pension fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The petitioner, an 85-86-year-old retired army personnel, filed a writ petition challenging a recovery order (Letter No. CPPC/24-25/SHR-4762 dated 07.12.2024) issued by the State Bank of India.

The bank sought to recover ₹17,91,903/- alleging that the petitioner’s rank was incorrectly recorded as "Sepoy Group Y" instead of "reservist" in the pension system for the period 2006 to 2024.

A stamp reporting defect (Defect No. 46) was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, suggesting the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

1. Whether a dispute concerning the recovery of alleged excess pension payments to a retired Army personnel falls within the definition of "service matters" under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, thereby ousting the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

2. Whether the petitioner's advanced age and the advanced stage of proceedings (counter-affidavit filed) justify the High Court entertaining the writ despite an alternative statutory remedy.

The Court applied Section 2 and Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, which stipulates that the Act applies to retired personnel of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and defines "service matters" to include allowances, pension, and other retirement benefits.

The Court further relied on the precedent set in Ex Cpl Group I 679805, H.B.K. Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh v. The Union of India & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 1115 of 2015), which affirmed that grievances regarding army pension must be redressed before the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The Court analyzed the statutory definitions under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, noting that Section 2 makes the Act expressly applicable to retired personnel subject to the Army Act, 1950.

Since the petitioner is a retired army person and the dispute pertains directly to his pension and rank-based remuneration, the Court determined the grievance squarely falls under "service matters" as defined in Section 3(o).

Responding to the petitioner’s plea regarding his age (85-86 years), the Court held that while the hardship is noted, the legal remedy lies with the specialized Tribunal.

The Court observed that the cause of action—a recovery due to a banking system error—does not change the fundamental nature of the dispute as a military pension matter.

The petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal within 60 days. To prevent immediate hardship, the Court ordered a stay on further recovery until the Tribunal passes an order on a stay petition, provided the petitioner files within the 60-day window.