NIRMALJIT SINGH SIDHU v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
CWP/33464/2019 · 2026-07-09
Sudeepti Sharma
body2019
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2019 DAILYLAW 4013 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2019 DAILYLAW 4013 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CWP No. 33464-2019 (O&M)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 33464-2019 (O&M) Nirmaljit Singh Sidhu ....Petitioner versus Union of India and ors.
...Respondents Date of Reserve: 07.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 09.07.2026 Uploaded on:- 13.07.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Abadhya Singh , Advocate, for the petitioner (amicus curiae). Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Sr Panel counsel with Ms. Angel Walia, Advocate for the respondents-Union of India . **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J.
1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of quo-warranto to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 asking them to show the legal authority based on which they assumed powers-of being an adjudicator for a “dispute of maintenance between an Army Officer and his wife’ and ‘ of being an authority to slap a penal
order under the penal deductions statute of Army Act Section 90 (i), resulting in a penal deduction imposed on the pay and allowances of the petitioner, as maintenance for his wife and son who are not even subjects of Army Act’.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was commissioned in to the Army via OTA Chennai. He married respondent No. 7 (Harpreet Kaur) on
05.11.2000. A son was born on 20.02.2004 out of the wedlock of petitioner and GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.13 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No. 33464-2019 (O&M)
2 respondent No. 7. On 08.05.2017, respondent No. 7 filed maintenance application before the President, AWWA, which was forwarded to the petitioner’s line command. On 01.09.2017, GOC-in-C, HQ Northern Command issued a show cause notice under Section 90 (i)/Army Rule 193/AO 2/2001. Respondent No. 7 filed affidavit dated 04.07.2017 affirming that she is unemployed. On 15.01.2018, the impugned order is passed directing the deduction of 27.5 % w.e.f 08.05.2017.
3. Despite service, petitioner as well as respondent No. 7 were not appearing for which assistance of Amicus Curiae was sought by Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 23.03.2026.
4.
Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner has alternative remedy before Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the same is passed under the powers conferred under Section 90 (i) of Army Act, 1950 (Act 46 of 1950) read with Rule 193 of the Army Rules 1954. Section 90 (i) of Army Act, 1950 (Act 46 of 1950) is reproduced below:-
90. Deductions from pay and allowances of officers:- The following penal deductions may be made from the pay and allowances of an officer, that is to say. (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) xxx xxx xxx (f) xxx xxx xxx GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.13 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No. 33464-2019 (O&M)
3 (g) xxx xxx xxx (h) xxx xxx xxx (i) any sum required by order of the Central Government [ or any prescribed officer] to be paid for the maintenance of his wife or his legitimate or illegitimate child or towards the cost of any relief given by t he said Government to the said wife or child.”
7. The above referred to provision is very clear about the penal deductions. The petitioner has not challenged the vires of Army Act, 1950 (Act 46 of 1950). Further the respondents have every authority to pass the impugned
order to grant maintenance allowance to wife and son of the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
9. This Court appreciates the assistance given by Ms. Abadhya Singh , Advocate (amicus curiae) regarding the provisions as well as the latest law related to this case.
10. Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. July 09, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Gaurav Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.13 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document