form no. 4 order sheet armed forces tribunal, …aftlko.up.nic.in/c1 daily order/c1 order-2017/c1...

Form No. 4 {See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 1

O.A. No. 472 of 2017 Dilip Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus

Union of India & Others Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents

Notes of the Registry

Orders of the Tribunal

30.10.2017 Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal BBP Sinha, Member (A)

Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri Amit Jaiswal

as counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Let his name be

shown as counsel for the respondents when the case is next listed.

Present : Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,

assisted by Col Hemant Kakar, OIC Legal Cell.

With liberty to respondents to proceed against the Applicant in

accordance with law for any delay or omission or commission, the

Applicant shall be permitted to resume duty in his unit immediately

when he reports for duty armed with copy of the present order. It shall

be subject to further orders by this Tribunal.

For the facts and reasons, the O.A is admitted.

Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks next

thereafter.

List this case for hearing on 04.01.2018.

It needs to be clarified that we have not entered into the merit of

the case.

(Air Marshal BBP Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) MH

Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET


C.A. No. 07 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 104 of 2017 Col Ran Singh Dudee Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Rajiv Manglik, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.

While deciding the O.A. No 104 of 2017 on 12.09.2017, we

had passed the following order:

47. In view of the above, we allow the petition with cost.

The impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the

respondents shall constitute fresh Selection Board within

two month from today which shall reconsider the

Applicant’s case afresh keeping in view the Tribunal

judgment in accordance with law expeditiously, say, within

two months.

48. The cost is quantified at Rs 5 lakhs which shall be

paid to the Applicant within two months. The cost shall be

deposited with the Registry of the Tribunal within the

aforesaid period and the same on deposit shall be released

in favour of the Applicant through cheque by the Registry.

The members of the Board shall indicate the date of entries

and punishment if any in the proceeding of the Selection

Board in case it is alive and affects the Applicant’s Service

career.

The crux of submission of learned counsel for the

Applicant is that the Selection Board was held between 26th Sept

2017 and 07.10.2017 but name of the applicant was not taken

into reckoning. The order at the very face of the record indicates

that the respondents were directed not only to constitute the

Board but also to reconsider the Applicant’s case afresh keeping

in view the judgment of the Tribunal within two months. Ex facie

there appears to be deliberate and intentional disobedience of

the order of the Tribunal aforesaid.

It has already been settled by a decision of Calcutta Armed

Forces Tribunal In C.A No 6 of 2015 vide judgment and order

dated 10.04.2015, Ashanandan Singh vs Lt Col K.S.Mehra

that the Tribunal is seized of the jurisdiction to take action under

section 19 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 in the event of

commission of contempt and non-compliance of the order of the

Tribunal by the authorities. Since in the present case, the case of

the Applicant has not been reconsidered in terms of the

directions contained in the order of the Tribunal dated

12.09.2017 though in the teeth of record, the Board was

constituted and other selections were held, this appears to

constitute deliberate and intentional attempt on the part of the

respondents to defy the order of the Tribunal.

Let notice be issued to respondents 2.3.4 and 5 to show

cause why they be not tried and punished for non compliance of

the order the Tribunal. We hope and expect that the order of the

Tribunal aforesaid shall be complied with by the next date fixed

in the case, failing which we shall be compelled to summon the

respondents aforesaid and pass appropriate orders for showing

disobedience to the order of the Tribunal.

List this case on 19.12.2017 for orders.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel

for the respondents forthwith for onward transmission to the

respondents concerned for compliance.




O.A. No. 200 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1404 of 2017

Virupaxayya Hiremath Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Mrs Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Rejoinder affidavit filed today in court by learned counsel

for the Applicant is taken on record.

List for hearing on 28.11.2017.




O.A. No. 275 of 2014

Darshan Kumar Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Yash Pal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents has stated across the bar

that the original record pertaining to the Applicant is not available. He

suggested that its necessary implication is that the record has been

weeded out. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits

that the policy of Govt of India is also not available.

Let an affidavit be filed stating therein the facts as aforesaid by

the next date fixed.,

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the costs which

have been imposed by the Tribunal vide its orders dated 24.08.2017

and 28.09.2017 have not yet been deposited. Learned counsel for the

respondents in reply submits that sanction has been accorded for

depositing the cost and the same is likely to be deposited very shortly.

Let the costs be deposited by the next date fixed.





O.A. No. 269 of 2015

Radhey Shyam Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri D.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents, assisted by Col Hemant Kakar, OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed, list this case on 06.11.2017 for hearing.




O.A. No. 69 of 2016

Ramesh Chandra Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri M.C. Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Sunil Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Learned counsel for the Applicant seeks adjournment in

order to enable him to prepare the case.

As prayed, the case is adjourned and is directed to be

listed for hearing on 11.12.2017.




O.A. No. 322 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1719 of 2017, M.A. No. 1612 of

2017, M.A. No. 1611 of 2017 & 1610 of 2017 along with C.A. No. 02 of 2017

Hari Shankar Tripathi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Applicant in person, and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal,

Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Col Hemant Kakar, OIC

Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents has stated across the bar

that the order of the Tribunal has been complied with by directing to

pay pension to the Applicant in terms of the impugned order dated

19.12.2016. A copy of the order so passed has been handed over to

the Applicant who appears in person.

In view of the above, the contempt Application is rendered

infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.

O.A.No 322 of 2016

As prayed, two weeks’ time is allowed to file rejoinder affidavit.

The respondents may also filed affidavit in reply to

supplementary affidavit filed by the Applicant.





O.A. No. 323 of 2016

Rahul Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri R. Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed, a week’s further time is allowed to file rejoinder

affidavit.





O.A. No. 20 of 2017

Sanjay Prakash Agnihotri Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri J.N. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Dr. Gyan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted

by Col Hemant Kakar, OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents, two

weeks’ further time is allowed to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder

affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks next thereafter.

List this case on 04.01.2018 for hearing.




O.A. No. 43 of 2017

Gajadhar Chaudhary Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri V.P. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri A.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


As prayed, four weeks’ time is allowed to file rejoinder

affidavit.





O.A. No. 213 of 2017

Dheeraj Modgil Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Ram Kumar Verma, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the


As prayed, two weeks’ further time is allowed to file

rejoinder affidavit.





O.A. No. 306 of 2017

Khalid Husain Siddiqui Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri S.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and

Shri R.C. Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by

Col Hemant Kakar, OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed, two weeks’ further time is allowed to file counter

affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks

next thereafter.





T.A. No. 753 of 2010 along with O.A. No. 248 of 2011

KP Mishra Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri S.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

and Shri D.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted

by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed, four weeks and no more time is allowed to file

counter affidavit to amended petition. Replication, if any, may be

filed within two weeks next thereafter.





T.A. No. 67 of 2011

Rameshwar Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Shri Rajeev Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Rajiv Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the


List this case for further hearing on 14.11.2017.




T.A. No. 19 of 2017 with M.A. No. 799 of 2017

Sepoy Vinod Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri D.S. Kauntae, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the


As prayed, four weeks’ further time is allowed to file

rejoinder affidavit.





D.Y. No. 1986 of 2107 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Virender Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus

Chief of Army Staff & Others Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




Shri Sidharth Dhaon, Advocate, assisted by Col Hemant

Kakar, OIC Legal Cell, has put in appearance on behalf of the

respondents. Memo of appearance filed by him is taken on

record. When the case is next listed, his name be shown as

counsel for the respondents.

A week’s time, as prayed for, is allowed to the petitioner to

file application for condonation of delay.

List this case for orders on 10.11.2017.

(Air Marshal BBP Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) LN/-



M.A. No. 1807 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Anil Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Shri Kaushik Chatterji, Advocate has filed memo of

appearance on behalf of the respondents, which is taken on



Present : Col Y.R. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Kaushik Chatterji, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


As prayed, four weeks’ time is allowed to the respondents

to file objection against the application for condonation of delay.

The applicant shall thereafter have two weeks’ time to file

replication.






Badam Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, Advocate has filed memo of




Present : Shri V.P. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the

Respondents, assisted by Col Hemant Kakar, OIC Legal Cell.




replication.






Rajnish Kumar Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Advocate has filed memo of




Present : Mrs Pushpila Bisht, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,





replication.





M.A. No. 1825 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Gange Ram Chaube Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Dr Gyan Singh, Advocate has filed memo of appearance

on behalf of the respondents, which is taken on record. When

the case is next listed, his name be shown as counsel for the

respondents.

Present : Shri V.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Dr Gyan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, assisted





replication.





M.A. No. 1826 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Rajesh Kumar Maurya Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus

Chief of Army Staff & Others Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




Shri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Advocate has filed memo of




Present : Shri Divakar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri R.C.Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, assisted





replication.





O.A. No. 474 of 2017 Aftab Alam Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Shri A.K.Sahu, Advocate has filed memo of appearance on

behalf of the respondents, which is taken on record. When the

case is next listed, his name be shown as counsel for the

respondents.

Present : Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri A.K.Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,





replication.





EX-A No. 180 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 291 of 2013 Ramesh Chand Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Shri VPS Vats, Advocate files memo of appearance on

behalf of the respondents, which is taken on record. When the


respondents.

Present : Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri VPS Vats, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,



to show cause why the Tribunal’s order dated has not been

complied with so far. They shall submit compliance report on the

next date fixed.






Ram Gopal Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus

Kapil Dev Mishra Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




Present : Shri Girish Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

and Shri Siddharth Dhaon Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed, a week’s time is allowed to the respondents to

file objection against the application for condonation of delay.

The respondents shall thereafter have a week’s time to file

replication.






Jagbir Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri K.K. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

and Col Hemant Kakar, OIC Legal Cell, for the respondents.

As prayed by OIC Legal Cell, one week’s time is allowed to

file objection against the application for condonation of delay.

The applicant shall thereafter have a week’s time to file

replication.






Gajendra Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri K.K. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

and Dr. Gyan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


Respondents’ counsel Dr. Gyan Singh files objection

against the application for condonation of delay. The same is

taken on record.

As prayed, the applicant is allowed two weeks’ time to file

replication.





M.A. No. 1716 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1717 of 2017

In re: T.A. No. 1480 of 2010

Harikesh Pandey Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Shri Mohd Zafar Khan, Advocate, files memo of




Present : Shri Amit Kumar Prasad, Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner, and Shri Mohd Zafar Khan, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents, assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.




replication.






In re: O.A. No. 99 of 2017

Union of India & Others Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants

Versus

Bashisht Kumar Dwivedi Respondent By Legal Practitioner for Respondent




Heard Ms Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant-


M.A.No. 1821 of 2017

This is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5

of the Limitation Act in filing application for leave to appeal. The

application has been preferred after lapse of statutory period. It is

well settled law that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the

delay in the matter.

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing

application for leave to appeal is not maintainable and is rejected.

M.A.No. 1822 of 2017

This is an application for grant of leave to appeal filed under

Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act.

Since the application for condonation of delay has already been

rejected, in consequence thereof, the application for leave to appeal

is also rejected.





In re: O.A. No. 244 of 2017

Union of India & Others Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants

Versus

Shambhu Singh Respondent By Legal Practitioner for Respondent




Heard Ms Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant-


M.A.No. 1819 of 2017



application has been preferred after lapse of statutory period. It is

well settled law that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the

delay in the matter.



M.A.No. 1820 of 2017


Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act.



is also rejected.




D.Y. No. 652 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Ashok Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri D.S. Kauntae, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri R.K.S. Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


Two weeks’ further time, as prayed, is granted to the

respondents’ counsel Shri RKS Chauhan to seek instructions as

to whether the pending statutory appeal of the applicant has

been decided or not.





D.Y. No. 1400 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Rajendra Singh Indolia Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Mrs Appoli Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


As prayed, two weeks’ further time is allowed to the

applicant to file application for condonation of delay in terms of

earlier order. The respondents shall thereafter have two weeks’

time to file objection.





EX-A No. 78 of 2017 In re: T.A. No. 33 of 2012 Surendra Singh Verma Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri V.P. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

and Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed

two weeks’ time to seek necessary instructions as to whether the

documents required to be submitted by the petitioner have been

submitted by him or not.





EX.A No. 95 of 2017 In re: T.A. No. 358 of 2015

Raj Bahadur Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri R. Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner



It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that

the Government sanction has been accorded and the PPO is

likely to be issued very soon.

List this case for orders on 04.12.2017. The respondents’

counsel shall submit compliance report on the date fixed.




EX-A No. 108 of 2017 In re: T.A. No. 05 of 2016 Sidhya Narayan Saxena Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner and Dr. Gyan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


As prayed, two weeks’ time is allowed to the respondents’

counsel to file compliance report.





EX-A No. 154 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 282 of 2015

Sheo Kumar Prasad Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Indra Pal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that

the Government sanction has been accorded and the PPO is

likely to be issued very soon.

List this case for orders on 04.12.2017. The respondents’

counsel shall submit compliance report on the date fixed.




M.A No. 801 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1500 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Hom Bahadur Chhetri Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the


Objection to the application for condonation of delay has

already been filed by the respondents.

Two weeks’ time, as prayed, is allowed to the applicant to

file replication.





M.A No. 836 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Ganga Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Mrs Appoli Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Three weeks’ time, as prayed, is granted to the applicant to

file rejoinder affidavit.






Surendra Singh & Others Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants

Versus





Present : Shri Ashok Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicants

and Shri R.K.S. Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Objection to the application for condonation of delay filed

by the respondents’ counsel Shri RKS Chauhan is taken on

record. The applicants shall have two weeks’ time to file

replication.





O.A No. 70 of 2012 with M.A. No. 833 of 2017

Pratap Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


The respondents’ counsel does not press the application

for modification. It is accordingly rejected as not pressed.

List this case for hearing before the regular Bench dealing

with SCM matters on 15.01.2018.





Anil Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Two weeks’ time, as prayed, is granted applicant’s counsel

Shri R.chandra to file replication.





O.A. No. 16 of 2017

Kulbhushan Dwivedi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri P.K. Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Rajiv Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


A week’s further time, as prayed, is granted to the

respondents to file counter affidavit. The applicant shall

thereafter have two weeks’ time to file rejoinder affidavit.





O.A. No. 368 of 2017

Dinesh Pratap Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri A.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Virendra Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,









M.A No. 2239 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2240 of 2016 In re O.A. (A) No. 03 of 2013

Shyambir Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








List this case for hearing on 15.01.2018 before the regular

Bench dealing with SCM matters in terms of earlier orders.




M.A. No. 494 of 2017 in re T.A. No. 82 of 2012

Mahavir Singh Rawat Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus






petitioner and Shri R.K.S. Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the


List this case for hearing on 06.11.2017 before the regular

Bench dealing with SCM matters in terms of earlier orders. The

respondents shall produce the record on the said date.




O.A. No. 213 of 2014

Veer Pratap Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






applicant and Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


Learned counsel for the applicant is not prepared with the

brief and seeks time.

List this case for hearing on 06.11.2017, as prayed.





Chunni Lal Yadav Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






applicant and Ms Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,








OA No 215 of 2014 with M.A. No. 210 of 2017

Rameshwar Dyal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






applicant and Ms Deepti Prasad Bajpai Ld. Counsel for the









Govind Singh Rautela Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Ashok Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Dr. C.N. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by

Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Counter affidavit has already been filed. The applicant

may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks.





M.A No. 1916 of 2015

Bal Krishan Tripathi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Ms Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,

assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Counsel for the applicant is reported to be out of station.





M.A No. 136 of 2016 with M.A. No. 142 of 2016

Ram Nath Singh Rathore Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

The case was taken up in the revised list.

None appears for the applicant.

Dismissed for non-prosecution.




M.A No. 1900 of 2016 In re O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Bhaiya Lal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri Kaushik Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Two weeks’ time, as prayed, is granted to the applicant to

file replication.






Nandji Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri K.K.S. Bisht, Ld. Counsel for the applicant



One week’s time, as prayed, is granted to the applicant to

file replication.






Radhe Shyam Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Kaushik Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the



file replication.






Mahananda Rath Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri V.A. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,



file replication.





M.A. No. 1074 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1585 of 2017 & M.A. No.

1316 of 2017 In re O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Smt Ganeshi Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the




thereafter have one week’s time to file rejoinder affidavit.





M.A. No. 1215 of 2017 In re O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Smt Maya Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri Siddharth Dhaon, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Objection filed by the respondents is taken on record. Two

weeks’ time, as prayed, is granted to the applicant to file

replication.





O.A. No. 218 of 2016

Shitla Prasad Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Ms Deepti P. Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,



applicant to file rejoinder affidavit.





O.A. No. 86 of 2017

Awadhesh Yadav Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Arun Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri G.S. Sikarwar, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


The case was taken up in the revised list.


Dismissed for non-prosecution.





Satendra Singh Pal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the


The applicant’s counsel is reported to be out of station.

Supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents’

counsel is taken on record. The applicant may file supplementary

rejoinder affidavit within two weeks.

List this case for hearing on 13.11.2017. The respondents

shall produce the record on the date fixed.




O.A. No. 174 of 2015

Jageshwar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the


Shri V.P. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is not

attending the Tribunal today.





O.A. No. 293 of 2015

Dinesh Kumar Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the


Shri P.N. Chaturvedi Ld. Counsel for the applicant is

suffering from illness.





O.A. No. 298 of 2016

Nagendra Singh Mamik Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Brig Anil Srivastava (Retd), Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri R.C. Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Right from 27.01.2017, this matter is being posted for hearing.

On 16.09.2017, when the respondents failed to produce the record,

adjournment was sought and it was granted subject to payment of

costs of Rs.10,000/-, which was deposited. Today again, the

respondents’ counsel seeks further time to produce the record. This

indicates slackness on the part of the respondents to produce the

record.

Subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/-, the respondents

are granted three weeks’ further time to produce the record. Costs so

deposited shall be release in favour of the applicant by the Registry

through cheque.

List this case for hearing on 06.12.2017. If the record is not

available, the respondents shall bring on record the status of the

same on the date fixed.


Form No. 4




M.A. No. 1611 of 2017, M.A. No. 1612 of 2017 M.A. No. 1610 of 2017 along with C.A. No. 02 of 2017

Hari Shankar Tripathi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Applicant in person, and Dr. Shailendra Sharma

Atal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen

Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Counter affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on

record.

The applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within a week.

The applicant for impleadment is allowed. The applicant is

permitted to carry out the amendment and implead the

authorities against whom he has preferred the contempt petition.

The supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is also

taken on record. The respondents may file reply to it within a

week.

In spite of the order dated 03.10.2017, neither the

compliance report has been submitted nor the Head of the

Department dealing with pension matters is present in person to

assist the tribunal as directed. Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal,

learned counsel for the respondents informs that the said order

was communicated to the office of PCDA (P), Allahabad. We

accordingly issue bailable warrant against Shri Subhash Kumar,

IDAS, Dy Controller (P), PCDA, Allahabad through Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Allahabad to appear before this Court on the next

date fixed. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad is

directed to serve the bailable warrant on the aforesaid officer.

At this juncture, Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned

counsel for the respondents gives an undertaking that the

aforesaid officer shall appear in person in terms of the earlier

order on 30.10.2017. Hence, issuance of bailable warrant shall

remain in abeyance till the said date.






Maj K Venkateswara Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Devansh Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for the



Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted

two weeks’ time to file rejoinder affidavit.





O.A. No. 299 of 2017

Rajesh Kumar Awasthi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is

suffering from illness.





T.A. No. 67 of 2011

Rameshwar Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri Rajeev Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the



As prayed, list this case for hearing on 30.10.2017.




T.A. No. 76 of 2016

Girish Dhar Dwivedi Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the


Shri Rohit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is reported

to be out of station.





T.A. No. 84 of 2016

Devendra Singh Kushwaha Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri Nishant Verma, Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the


Two weeks’ time, as prayed, is granted to the respondents

to file objection against the amendment application. The

petitioner shall thereafter have two weeks’ time to file reply.





T.A. No. 33 of 2017

Jeewan Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


Shri V.A.Singh, Advocate files memo of appearance on

behalf of the petitioner. The same is taken on record. When the


petitioner.





T.A. No. 34 of 2017

Suraj Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


Shri V.A.Singh, Advocate files memo of appearance on

behalf of the petitioner. The same is taken on record. When the


petitioner.






Ashok Kumar Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri Yogesh

Kesarwani as counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Let

his name be shown when the case is next listed.

Present: Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the

Respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is

granted four weeks’ time to file objection vis a vis the Application

for condonation of delay. Replication, if any, may be filed within

two weeks next thereafter.

List this case on 09.01.2018 for admission.





Prakash Alias Om Prakash Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Yash Pal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Sunil Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


Shri Sunil Sharma appeared and argued the case but no

memo of appearance has been filed.

A preliminary objection has been raised to the effect that

the O.A is not maintainable as the relief claimed is for providing

service details of the deceased, a member of the Indian Army,

who happens to be the father of the Applicant. The objection

raised, in our considered view, seems to be misconceived for the

reasons that under section 3 (o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal

Act, 2007, the expression used is “any other matter whatsoever”.

Hence all matters relating to service of deceased, a serving army

personnel falls within the jurisdiction of Armed Forces Tribunal.

In case, the member of the Armed forces dies, his legal heir and

successor has right to approach the Tribunal for claiming the

benefits available to the dependents of armed Forces personnel.

The Tribunal has ample power to issue direction to provide

necessary details so that the dependent of deceased Army

personnel may approach the appropriate forum to ventilate his

grievance.

A Division Bench of High Court at Lucknow of which one of

us was a member, had dwelt upon the interpretation of the

expression “for any other purpose” vide order dated 20.02.2014

rendered in writ petition No 8051 of 1989 Major Kunwar

Ambreshwar Singh vs Union of India and others.

In view of the above, the preliminary objection raised by

the learned counsel for the respondents lacks merit and is

rejected.


granted four weeks’ time to file objection. Replication if any, may

be filed within two weeks next thereafter.

List this case for admission on 11.01.2018.





Raj Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






applicant and Ms Deepti Prasad Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the


Though Ms Deepti Prasad Bajpai appeared as counsel for

the respondents but no memo of appearance has been filed on

her behalf.


granted three weeks’ time to file objection vis a vis the

Application for condonation of delay. Replication, if any, may be

filed within one week next thereafter.






Jawahar Upadhyay Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri Anurag

Mishra as counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Let his

name be shown when the case is next listed.

Present: Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the



granted three weeks’ time to file objection vis a vis the

Application for condonation of delay. Replication, if any, may be

filed within one week next thereafter.





O.A. No. 471 of 2017 Chet Ram Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Dr Shesh

Narayan Pandey, as counsel for the respondents is taken on

record. Let his name be shown when the case is next listed


and Dr. Shesh Narayan Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the



granted four weeks’ time to file objection vis a vis the Application

for condonation of delay. Replication, if any, may be filed within

one week next thereafter.





EX-A. No. 176 of 2017 In re: T.A. No. 211 of 2009 Liladhar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Shri Yash Pal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the


This execution application has been files seeking

implementation of the order of the Tribunal dated 26.04.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for four weeks’

time.

List this case on 05.12.2017 for orders. In the meanwhile,

the respondents be called upon to show cause why the order of

the Tribunal dated 26.04.2017 has not yet been complied with.




EX-A. No. 177 of 2017 In re: T.A. No. 579 of 2010 Harish Chandra Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri Mohd Shariq Khan, Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner and Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the


Learned counsel for the respondents has informed the

Court that Govt sanction has been accorded on 10.10.2017 and

only PPO remains to be issued.

Four weeks’ time is granted for showing cause why the

order of the Tribunal dated 31.01.2017 has not yet been

complied with.

List this case on 04.12.2017 for orders on which date

learned counsel for the respondents shall submit compliance

report.




EX-A. No. 178 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 138 of 2010 Lal Chandra Dubey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Col A. K. Srivastava (Retd), Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for

the Respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Present Execution Application has been filed seeking

implementation of the order of the Tribunal dated 29.03.2017.

Let show cause notice be issued to the respondents to

show cause why the order of the Tribunal dated 29.03.2017 has

not yet been complied with.





EX-A. No. 179 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 43 of 2016 Narendra Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri Rajiv

Pandey, as counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Let

his name be shown when the case is next listed.

Present : Col A.K. Srivastava (Retd), Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Rajiv Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the


Let show cause notice be issued to the respondents to

show cause why the order of the Tribunal dated 13.04.2017 has

not yet been complied with.





M.A. No. 1195 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Surendra Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Ms Appoli Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


Objection filed today in court is taken on record. Let

replication, if any, may be filed within two weeks.

List this case on 08.12.2017 for admission/orders.




M.A. No. 1804 of 2017 In re: M.A. No. 1614 of 2017

Keshav Kumar Dubey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri Ashish

Kumar Singh, as counsel for the respondents is taken on record.

Let his name be shown when the case is next listed.

Present : None for the Applicant and Shri Ashish Kumar

Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Wg Cdr

Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the Applicant is reported to be out of

station.





M.A. No. 1805 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1806 of 2017, In re: O.A. No. 125 of 2013

Union of India & Others Applicants - respondent By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants - respondent

Versus

Abhishesk Pandey Respondent - applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent- applicant




Present : Shri Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant


M.A. No. 1805 of 2017

This is an application for condonation of delay under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing application for leave to

appeal. The application has been preferred after lapse of

statutory period. It is well settled law that the Tribunal lacks

jurisdiction to condone the delay.

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in

filing application for leave to appeal is not maintainable and is

rejected.

M.A. No. 1806 of 2017

This is an application for grant of leave to appeal filed

under Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act.

Since the application for condonation of delay has already

been rejected, in consequence thereof, the application for leave

to appeal is also rejected.




T.A. No. 5 of 2017 Anand Prakash Tiwari Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri Mohd

Zafar Khan, as counsel for the respondents is taken on record.

Let his name be shown when the case is next listed

Present: None for the petitioner and Shri Mohd Zafar Khan,

Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul

Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

Present T.A. has been received by transfer from High

Court Allahabad.

Let notice be issued to the petitioner returnable by

December 2017 attended with the direction that he may engage

a counsel or make some alternative arrangement for his

representation in the Tribunal.





EX-A. No. 5 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 134 of 2015

Rajeev Moitra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Jai Narain Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the


It is submitted across the bar that the case be adjourned

awaiting the status report in pending appeal in the Hon’ble Apex

Court.

In view of the above, the case is adjourned and is directed

to be listed on 16.02.2018 for orders.




EX-A. No. 37 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 196 of 2015

Smt Sangeeta Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Rohit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted

by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

A statement has been made across the bar by learned

counsel for the respondents that the order of the Tribunal has

been fully complied with inasmuch as PPO has been issued on

04.08.2017 with direction to the Bank concerned to credit the

amount to the account of the learned counsel for the Applicant

expeditiously.

The Bank concerned is directed to do the needful within

one month in terms of the PPO issued on 04.08.2017.

The cost has already been deposited. The office is directed

to release the cost in favour of the Applicant through cheque

forthwith.

The Ex Application shall stand disposed of in terms of the

above.


Form No. 4



EX-A No. 78 of 2017 In re T.A. No. 33 of 2012 Surendra Singh Verma Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri V.P. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

and Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


It is informed that the required document has been

submitted only on 23.10.2017. Accordingly four weeks’ further

time is allowed to submit compliance report on the date fixed.

Before the order could be signed, a request has been

made to list the matter for hearing again on 30.10.2017.

In view of the above, the case is directed to be listed for

hearing again on 30.10.2017.




EX-A No. 106 of 2017 In re T.A. No. 77 of 2013 Jainendra Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri V.A. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

and Shri G.S. Sikarwar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


It is submitted across the bar that the requisite documents

have been submitted to the record office on 23.10.2017 and

therefore, learned counsel for the respondents seeks further time

to comply with the order of the Tribunal dated 27.01.2017.

On 26.09.2017, we had passed a stop order to submit

compliance report within four weeks. Now since the Applicant

was himself at fault in furnishing the requisite document

belatedly, we direct four weeks’ further time to submit

compliance report.





EX-A No. 129 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1772 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 113 of 2016

Surya Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus

AGs (Recruitment) IHQ of MoD Army Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




Present : Shri T.B. Srivastava Ld. Counsel for the applicant



It is informed that the order of dismissal has been

communicated in compliance of the order of the Tribunal. We

have already given opportunity to the Applicant to approach the

appropriate forum.

Accordingly, the Ex Application is disposed of with liberty

to the Applicant to approach the appropriate forum against the

impugned order of dismissal.




EX-A No. 133 of 2017 In re T.A. No. 1451 of 2010 Anil Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri Rohit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner



This Ex Application has been filed seeking implementation

of the order of the Tribunal dated 18.01.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondents seeks further time to

comply with the order of the Tribunal.

As prayed three weeks’ further time is granted to show

cause why the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with.






Indra Dev Singh Yadav Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the



Compliance report in the form of affidavit has been filed by

the learned counsel for the respondents which is taken on

record.

Since order of the Tribunal has been complied with, the Ex

Application is rendered infructuous.

Accordingly, Ex Application is dismissed as infructuous.




EX-A No. 155 of 2017 In re T.A. No. 1288 of 2010 Chandra Bhushan Yadav Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri K.K.S. Bisht, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

and Shri Mohd Zafar Khan, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


This Ex Application has been filed seeking implementation

of the order of the Tribunal dated 18.04.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondents seeks further time to

comply with the order.

As prayed, four weeks’ further time is granted to show

cause why the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with.





O.A. No.138 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2500 of 2016

VK Prajapati & Ors Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants

Versus





Present : Shri Rajeev Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the

applicants and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the


Rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.






Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








As prayed, two weeks’ further time is granted to the






O.A. A No. 321 of 2016

KK Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed, two weeks’ further time is granted to the






O.A. A No. 1 of 2017

Jay Pal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








List this case for hearing on 03.11.2017 to enable the

respondents’ counsel to produce the record.




O.A. A No. 109 of 2017

Ram Deo Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Dr. S.N. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


As prayed, four weeks’ further time is granted to the







O.A. A No. 295 of 2017

Abhay Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri D.S. Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,

assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed, four weeks’ further time is granted to the







T.A. A No. 753 of 2010 Along with O.A. No. 248 of 2011

KP Mishra Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Shri D.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the


Shri S.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is reported

to e out of station.





T.A. A No. 30 of 2012 with M.A. No. 779 of 2017

VS Malik Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell for the

respondents.

None appears for the petitioner.

As prayed by OIC Legal Cell, list this case for hearing on

31.10.2017.




M.A. No. 1790 of 2017 In re : O.A. No. Nil of 2017

PN Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri Ashish

Kumar Singh as counsel for the respondents is taken on record.

Let his name be shown in the cause list when the case is next

listed.

Present : Shri B.P. Dubey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,



granted four weeks’ time to file objection. Replication, if any, may







Awanish Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri Virendra

Singh as counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Let his

name be shown in the cause list when the case is next listed.


and Shri Virendra Singh Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,



granted four weeks’ time to file objection. Replication, if any, may






EX-A. No. 174 of 2017 In re: Dy No. 2004 of 2016

Prashotam Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

OIC Legal Cell has made a statement across the bar that a

speaking and reasoned order has been passed in compliance of

the order of the Tribunal vide order dated 09.05.2017 a copy of

which shall be provided to the learned counsel for the Applicant

in the course of day today.

In view of the above, the Ex. Application is rendered

infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as having become

infructuous.





In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Rajesh Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Ms Anju Singh Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, assisted


It is stated that objection has already been filed and the

same is available on record.

Let replication, if any, may be filed within two weeks.





M.A. No. 1334 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Durga Shanker Shukla Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri A.N. Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for the



granted two weeks’ time to file objection. He may also file

counter affidavit within the aforesaid period. Replication, if any,

may be filed within one week next thereafter.





M.A. No. 1335 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Ram Awadh Rai Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






applicant and Ms Appoli Shrivastava, Ld. Counsel for the



granted two weeks’ time to file objection. Replication, if any, may

be filed within one week next thereafter. Learned counsel for the

respondents may also file counter affidavit within the aforesaid

period.





M.A. No. 1337 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Devi Saran Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri R. Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


A week’s time is allowed to file objection. Replication, if

any, may be filed within one week thereafter.





M.A. No. 1343 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Sukhvir Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Col A. K. Srivastava (Retd), Ld. Counsel for the




granted to file objection to the Application for condonation of

delay. He may also file counter affidavit within the aforesaid

period. Replication, if any, may be filed within one week

thereafter.





M.A. No. 1774 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1775 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 157 of 2017

Union of India & Others Applicants- respondent By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants - respondent

Versus

Jevanand Respondents- applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent- applicant




Present : Dr. Gyan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicants-

respondent and assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

M.A. No. 1774 of 2017

This is an application for condonation of delay under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing application for leave to

appeal. The application has been preferred after lapse of

statutory period. It is well settled law that the Tribunal lacks

jurisdiction to condone the delay.

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in

filing application for leave to appeal is not maintainable and is

rejected.

M.A. No. 1775 of 2017

This is an application for grant of leave to appeal filed

under Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act.

Since the application for condonation of delay has already

been rejected, in consequence thereof, the application for leave

to appeal is also rejected.




M.A. No. 1781 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1782 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 172 of 2017

Sahendra Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Brahm Deo Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri R.C.Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


M.A. No. 1781 of 2017



application has been preferred after lapse of statutory period. It is well

settled law that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay.



M.A. No. 1782 of 2017


Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act.



is also rejected.





In re: T.A. No. 172 of 2010

Union of India &Others Applicants - Respondent By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants - Respondent

Versus

Kapil Dev Mishra Respondent-petitioners By Legal Practitioner for Respondent - petitioners




Present: Ms. Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants -

respondent assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

M.A. No. 1784 of 2017



application has been preferred after lapse of statutory period. It is well

settled law that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay.



M.A. No. 1785 of 2017


Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act.



is also rejected.




M.A No. 1792 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1793 of 2017 In re: T.A. No. 1103 of 2010

RN Mishra Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri Bhasker Prasad Dubey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul

Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

M.A. No 1792 of 2017

Heard.

Learned counsel for the Applicant has explained the delay.

Application is allowed.

M.A. No 1793 of 2017

This is an Application for recall of the order dated 21.09.2017

whereby O.A was dismissed for default.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the Applicant has explained his absence on

the day. The explanation offered is convincing.

In this view of the matter, Application is allowed and the order dated

21.09.2017 is recalled of course subject to payment of cost which we

quantify at Rs 300/-. The cost shall be deposited within a week. On deposit,

the said amount shall be remitted to the account of local Bar Association for

being utilised for upgradation of its library.





M.A No. 1794 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1795 of 2017 In re: T.A. No. 1065 of 2010

RN Mishra Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri Bhasker Prasad Dubey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, assisted

by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh-, OIC Legal Cell.

M.A.No 1794 of 2017.

Heard. Learned counsel for the Applicant has explained the delay.

Application for condonation of delay is allowed.

M.A. No 1795 of 2017

This is an Application for recall of the order dated 21.09.2017

whereby O.A was dismissed for default.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the Applicant has explained his absence on

the day. The explanation offered is convincing.

In this view of the matter, Application is allowed and the order dated

21.09.2017 is recalled of course subject to payment of cost which we

quantify at Rs 300/-. The cost shall be deposited within a week. On deposit,

the said amount shall be remitted to the account of local Bar Association for

being utilised for upgradation of its library.





T.A. No. 29 of 2016

Surendra Singh Yadav Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present None for the Petitioner and Dr. Chet Narain Singh,

Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa,

OIC Legal Cell.

It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the

T.A has been received by transfer and notice has to be issued to

the petitioner for its appearance.

Let notice be issued to the petitioner calling upon him to

engage counsel or to make alternative arrangement for his

representation in the Court. Let the petitioner be also asked to

furnish Bench copy of the petition with accompanying annexures.





T.A. No. 49 of 2017

Ghanshyam Tiwari Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : None for the petitioner and Shri Yogesh

Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj

Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the

T.A has been received by transfer and notice has to be issued to

the petitioner for its appearance.

Let notice be issued to the petitioner calling upon him to

engage counsel or to make alternative arrangement for his

representation in the Court. Let the petitioner be also asked to

furnish Bench copy of the petition with accompanying annexures.





D.Y. No. 2769 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1637 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Sunil Tewari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Learned counsel for the Applicant prays for and is granted

two weeks’ time to file reply to the objection.





EX.A No. 103 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 283 of 2014

Bramhanand Chauhan Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri V.K. Pandey Ld. Counsel for the applicant



Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

entire amount in observance of the order of the Tribunal has not

been credited to Applicant’s account. However, he explained that

it was on account of festival that he has not received the

complete information why the order of the Tribunal has not been

complied with in entirety.

As prayed, the case is ordered to be listed on 02.11.2017

in order to enable learned counsel for the respondents to submit

compliance report in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated

12.10.2017.

It has been brought to our notice that the cost has also not

been deposited as yet.

Let the order be complied with in entirety by the next date

fixed. It is clarified that in case order is not complied with in

totality, the respondents shall deposit the cost in terms of the

earlier order.

It is further clarified that the cost of Rs 10,000/- earlier

deposited in the case shall be released in favour of the Applicant

through cheque by the Registry of the Tribunal.


Form No. 4




Pramod Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Col R.N. Singh (Retd), Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the


It is brought to our notice that the Govt sanction has

already been accorded and only PPO remains to be issued.

In connection with the above, learned counsel for the

respondents prays for four weeks’ time.

As prayed, four weeks’ time is allowed to submit

compliance report alongwith copy of the PPO which may be sent

to the Bank concerned.





Ex.A No. 122 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 333 of 2012 With In re Ex-A No. 92 of 2013

Ram Asre Yadav Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri S.B. Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the applicant



Affidavit filed today is taken on order.

It is conceded by learned counsel for the respondents that

the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with as yet.

Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to pinpoint

the names of the officers who have failed to comply with the

order of the Tribunal by the next date fixed.


The cost imposed by means of order dated 13.09.2017 has

not yet been deposited. Let the cost be deposited within a week

which shall be released in favour of the Applicant through

cheque by the Registry.





Smt Haruli Devi Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Shri K.K.S. Bisht, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner



The order of the Tribunal, it is conceded, has not yet been

complied with in entirety.

List this case after a month on 04.12.2017 for orders in

order to enable learned counsel for the respondents to produce

compliance report and the decision taken in pursuance of the

order of the Tribunal dated 09.08.2017.





Nihal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri K.K.S. Bisht, Ld. Counsel for the applicant



It is submitted that the sanction has already been accorded

by the Govt but the PPO still remains to be issued.

As prayed, list this case after a month for orders on

04.12.2017 in order to enable the learned counsel for the

respondents to ensure that the PPO is issued to the Bank

concerned by the date fixed. A copy of the PPO shall be

produced in Court for perusal of the Bench.





Inder Jeet Pathak Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri K.K.S. Bisht, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Rajiv Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Ex. A No 135 of 2017

It is stated across the bar that speaking order dated

01.05.2017 has been passed in compliance of the order of the

Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to

supply copy of the order to the learned counsel for the Applicant.

In view of the above, the Ex Application is rendered

infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.





Smt Neelam Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Angrej Nath Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Ms Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents, two

weeks’ further time is allowed to submit compliance report.






Uma Kant Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri K.K.Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Ms Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by

Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed by learned counsel for the Applicant, one week’s

time is granted to file reply to the objection.






Smt Kamla Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri Ambrish

Dubey as counsel for respondent no 3 is taken on record. Let his

name be shown when the case is next listed.


and Shri Md Zafar Khan, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Learned counsel for the respondent no 3 may file objection

within two weeks.





M.A No. 2540 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1496 of 2017 & M.A. No. 1102 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Pushpa Devi Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri P.K. Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed, two weeks’ time is allowed to file response to

the affidavit filed by the Applicant.






Mohd Yunus Khan Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Ms Appoli Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed two weeks’ time is allowed to file reply to the

objection.





M.A No. 208 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 357 of 2015

LN Rathore Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri Rajiv Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

As prayed, list this case on 30.10.2017 for hearing.

Learned counsel for the respondents shall produce original

record for perusal of the Bench on the date fixed.





In re O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Jogendra Kumar Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present :None for the applicant, Dr. Chet Narain Singh, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh,

OIC Legal Cell and Shri S.B.Pathak, Learned counsel for the

respondent Bank arrayed as respondent no 5.

It is mentioned that learned counsel for the Applicant has

not attended the court on account of being ill.

As agreed by both the learned counsel aforesaid, list this

case on 17.11.2017 for orders.





Ram Pratap Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






applicant and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


Reply filed by the learned counsel for the Applicant is taken

on record.

The controversy in the instant case pertains to grant of

disability pension. The disability pension being a recurring cause

of action, the Application is allowed and the delay is condoned.

Admit.

Let counter affidavit be filed within two weeks.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks

next thereafter.





M.A. No. 1232 of 2017 In re T.A. No. 69 of 2012

Diwan Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the


Cost imposed by order dated 21.09.2017 has been

deposited.





M.A. No. 1234 of 2017 In re O.A. No. (A) 191 of 2014

Ravi Shankar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






applicant and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the


Cost imposed by order dated 21.09.2017 has been

deposited.

A week’s time is allowed to file rejoinder affidavit.






Onkar Nath Shukla Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri V.P. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed, a week’s time is allowed to file objection.

Replication, if any, may be filed within one week next thereafter.






Vijay Pal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri K.K. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell for the respondents.

It is mentioned that counsel for the respondents has not

attended the court today.

Objection in terms of earlier order has not been filed as

yet.

In view of the above, the case is directed to be listed on

28.11.2017 for orders. In the meanwhile objection in terms of

earlier order be filed.




O.A. No. 325 of 2015

Rakesh Kumar Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Col R.C. Dixit (Retd), Ld. Counsel for the



Amended copy of the O.A filed by learned counsel for the

Applicant has been taken on record.


granted two weeks’ time to file counter affidavit to the amended

O.A. Rejoinder affidavit if any, may be filed within two weeks

next thereafter.





O.A. No. 28 of 2017

Manoj Kumar Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








As prayed, two weeks’ further time is allowed to file counter

affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks

next thereafter.





O.A. (A) No.105 of 2015

Trilok Dutt Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Nishant Verma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri D.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents, the

case is directed to be listed on 20.11.2017 under the heading

“for further hearing”.




EX-A. A No.101 of 2015 In re Ex-A No. 40 of 2013

& O.A. No. 332 of 2012

Ram Sajiwan Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Shyam Bihari Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the


The crux of submission advanced across the bar is that the

order of the Tribunal dated 24.08.2012 has not been complied

with whereby it was directed that the respondents shall continue

to pay regular pension of Naib Subedar to the applicant in the

revised rate with effect from 01.01.2006. In so far as order

pertaining to payment of interest is concerned, it is submitted

that Hon Apex Court has already waived that part of the order

vide order dated 20.05.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No 4677 of

2014, a copy of which is taken on record.

By means of earlier order dated 12.10.2017, it was

directed that in case pension of the post of Naib Subedar is not

paid to the Applicant within two weeks from today, the Senior

Treasury Officer Sultanpur shall appear in person. The Senior

Treasury officer Sultanpur is present in person and produced

before us the corrigendum PPO. A perusal of the corrigendum

PPO shows that the PPO has been issued granting pension of

the rank of honorary Naib Subedar. The aforesaid PPO it would

appear has been issued in utter disobedience of the order of the

Tribunal. Thus it would appear that Senior Treasury officer was

not at fault. The operative portion of the order of the Tribunal is

quoted below.

“06. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case the present 0riginal Application is allowed with

costs with the direction to the respondents to issue

corrigendum PPO and direct the concerned Bank for

payment of revised pension as per corrigendum PPO

with arrears and interest @ 8% per annum accrued

thereon to the applicant on account of revision of

pension and shall continue to pay regular pension of

Nb Sub to the applicant in the revised rate with effect

from 01.1.2006. It shall be done within a period of

two months from the date of production of a certified

copy of this order.”

In view of the above, at the face of the record, we veer

round to the view that a faulty PPO has been issued by the

respondents which enumerates payment of pension of the rank

of Honorary Naib Subedar. The respondents in compliance of

the order of the Tribunal ought to have paid the pension of the

post of Naib Subedar instead of Honorary Naib Subedar.

Thus, it is directed that a corrected PPO strictly

incompliance of the order of the Tribunal shall be issued to the

Senior Treasury officer Sultanpur forthwith who on receipt of

corrected PPO shall release the pension of the post of naib

Subedar to the Applicant within two weeks. Needless to say that

the entire process shall be completed within two weeks.

List the case immediately after two weeks on 14.11.2017

for hearing.

The appearance of Senior Treasury Officer Sultanpur shall

stand exempted till further orders by the Court.




M.A. No.1897 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1640 of 2017

In re O.A. No. 67 of 2015

Md Shoharab Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri P.N. Chaturvedi Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Ms Deepti P. Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the


Objection filed by learned counsel for the respondents is

taken on record. Replication if any may be filed within two weeks

next thereafter.






Prakash Narain Shukla Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Abhishak Singh, Ld. Counsel for the



It would transpire that the Applicant has approached this

Tribunal after afflux of more than 25 years for the relief. Learned

counsel for the respondents submits that the Applicant having

retired in the year 1964, the service record is not available and

has already been weeded out.

Be that as it may, as prayed by learned counsel for the

Applicant, the case is ordered to be listed for hearing on

06.11.2017.


form no. 4 order sheet armed forces tribunal, …aftlko.up.nic.in/c1 daily order/c1 order-2017/c1...

Documents