order sheet armed forces tribunal, regional bench, …aftlko.up.nic.in/c1 daily order/c1 order...

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

M.A. No. 309 of 2018 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2018

Harish Chandra Mishra Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus

Union of India & Others Respondents

By Legal Practitioner for Respondents

Notes of

the

Registry

Orders of the Tribunal

04.04.2018

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J)

Hon’ble Air Marshal BBP Sinha, Member (A)

Present: Shri P.K. Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Virat

Anand Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sunil Sharma,

learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he shall file

objection on application for condonation of delay in the Registry during

the course of day.

List this case on 09.04.2018 for orders.

(Air Marshal BBP Sinha) (Justice S.V.S. Rathore)

Member (A) Member (J) anb

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 133 of 2017

Hari Shankar Singh Chauhan Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Shri R. Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri

Shyam Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Re-survey Medical

Board of the applicant has been conducted.

Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to bring on record

opinion of said medical board by means of affidavit.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 605 of 2017

Om Prakash Mishra Applicant


Versus

Chief of Army Staff & Others Respondents


Notes of

the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Shri R.P. Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr.

Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted a week’s

time to file counter affidavit in the Registry after serving copy thereof on

learned counsel for the applicant who may file rejoinder affidavit, if any,

within next two weeks.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 621 of 2017

Bachcha Jee Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Shri Shiv Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the

respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is

granted four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 623 of 2017

Deo Nandan Tiwari Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018




applicant and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for

the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted

four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.



Member (A) Member (J) SB

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 624 of 2017

Raj Nath Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018


Hon’ble Air Marshal B.B.P. Sinha, Member (A)


applicant and Ms. Amrita Chakraborty, learned counsel for the

respondents.




(Air Marshal B.B.P. Sinha) (Justice S.V.S. Rathore)


Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 629 of 2017 with M.A. No. 866 of 2018

Vishnu Deo Tiwari Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018




applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the

respondents.

M.A. No. 866 of 2018

Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the

respondents is taken on record. M.A. aforesaid is dispose of

accordingly.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted

four weeks’ time to file rejoinder affidavit.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 635 of 2017

Brij Behari Tiwari Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018




applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the

respondents.






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 641 of 2017

Mukhtyar Ahmed Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018




applicant and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the

respondents.






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 58 of 2018

Ashok Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018




applicant and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the

respondents.






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 117 of 2018

Smt. Sumitra Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018





the respondents.






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 119 of 2018

Surendra Kumar Srivastava Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018




applicant and Shri Shyam Singh, learned counsel for the

respondents.






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


T.A. No. 515 of 2010 Tfr to AFT (RB) Jabalpur on 21/12/2017

Shyam Sunder Petitioner

By Legal Practitioner for Petitioner

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: None for the petitioner and Dr. Shailendra Sharma

Atal, learned counsel for the respondents.

None is present on behalf of the petitioner. This T.A. was

decided vide order dated 08.12.2017. The operative portion of the

order reads as under:-

“13. Keeping in view the afore mentioned definition of cause of

action, it was nowhere necessary for the applicant to prove that a

custodian of record in Lucknow had the power of review. Virtually

this aspect has concern with the lis involved in this case,

particularly, when the applicant has admittedly not made any effort

to invoke such power of review. In view of the discussion made

above, this T.A. is not maintainable before this Tribunal and

deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed as not

maintainable.

14. Registrar is hereby directed to remit the record of this case to

the Regional Bench to which this case relates. The applicant has

liberty to move the application before the Principal Bench, Armed

Forces Tribunal, Delhi for transfer of this case to Rajasthan or any

other Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal.”

Thereafter the Hon’ble Chairperson Principal Bench, AFT, New

Delhi vide order dated 23.02.2018 in AT 05/2018 has directed to

transfer this case to Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench,

Lucknow from Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench, Jabalpur for

its final disposal and further retention. This is how the case has come

up before us.

It is reported that P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the

petitioner is no more. Let notice be issued to the petitioner to make

alternative arrangement.

List this case on 09.05.2018 for further orders.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 47 of 2016

Akhilesh Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Vakalatnama filed by Shri Satendra Kumar Singh on behalf

of the applicant is taken on record. His name be shown as learned

counsel for the applicant when the case is listed next.

Present: Shri Satendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the

respondents.

In pursuance to our order dated 12.02.2018, copy of Page

No. 3 of the counter affidavit has been provided to learned

counsel for the applicant who prays for time to file

supplementary rejoinder affidavit to Page No. 30, if required.

List this case on 07.05.2018 for hearing.

On the date fixed, learned counsel for the parties shall file

synopsis and case laws. Learned counsel for the respondents

shall also produce original documents pertaining to the case for

perusal of the Bench.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



VK Prajapati & Ors Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Shri Rajeev Srivastava, learned counsel for the


the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant has produced copy of the

order dated 08.03.2018.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in

pursuance to the said order, supplementary counter affidavit has

to be filed.


Meanwhile supplementary rejoinder affidavit may be filed

by learned counsel for the applicant.

On the date fixed, learned counsel for the respondents shall

produce original documents pertaining to the case for perusal of

the Bench.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 178 of 2016

Kushal Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Shri Satendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the


the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he shall file

second supplementary rejoinder affidavit in the Registry during

the course of day after providing a copy thereof to learned

counsel for the respondents.

As prayed, list this case on 11.05.2018 for hearing.



the Bench.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 240 of 2017

Sinhasan Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Col Y.R. Sharma (Retd), learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the

respondents.

The case is listed for hearing. Learned counsel for the

applicant prays for and is granted time to file synopsis and case

laws relied upon by him in support of his submissions and prays

for adjournment.




the Bench.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



Hem Raj Bhatta Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Shri Parijaat Belaura, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Kaushik Chatterjee, learned counsel for the

respondents.


a week’s time to file counter affidavit.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


T.A. No. 84 of 2016

Devendra Singh Kushwaha Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Dr. Ashish Asthana, Advocate holding brief of Shri

Nishant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.


This is a very old T.A. Learned counsel for the petitioner

prays for adjournment.




the Bench.



Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No.1

O.A.No. 322 of 2016

Smt Manjula Tripathi,

wife of late Hari Shankar Tripathi Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018


Present: Col Rakesh Johri (Retd), learned counsel for the applicant and Dr

Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa,

OIC Legal Cell.

In this case, a direction was given to learned counsel for both the parties to file the

tabulation chart with respect to the dates of revision of pension and the revised amount of

pension of late Col Hari Shankar Tripathi at different stages. In pursuance of the said

direction, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit annexing therewith the

tabulation chart. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he could not get

instructions within time from his client because of Bharat Band. He prays for some time to

go through the tabulation chart filed by the respondents and to seek instructions with

regard to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

With the consent of parties’ counsel, the case is adjourned to 10.04.2018. Let it be

listed for hearing on the said date at 02.00 p.m.

(Justice S.V.S. Rathore)

Member (J)

LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


EX.A. No. 60 of 2018

Inre: O.A. No. 262 of 2012

Mahesh Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri DK Pandey, Advocate on

behalf of the respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as

counsel for the respondents when the case is listed next.

Present: Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri DK Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

This is an application for execution of order dated 24.04.2017

passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 262 of 2012.


four weeks’ time to seek instructions and show cause as to why the

aforesaid order under execution has not yet been complied with.



Member (A) Member (J) RPM/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 948 of 2018 with M.A. No. 949 of 2018

Inre: O.A. No. 387 of 2017

Balvinder Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Shri Sarvesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant

and Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents.

MA. No. 948 of 2018

This is an application for condonation of delay in moving the

application under section 31(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act

2007 for grant of leave to appeal against the orders dated 15.11.2017

passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 387 of 2017.

As per stamp reporter’s report, there is delay of 03 month and 16

days in filing the application for leave to appeal. Section 31 (2) of the

Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 provides that the application for

leave to appeal shall be made for approaching Hon’ble Supreme Court

within a period of 30 days beginning with the date of decision of the

Tribunal. Apart from it, we have also gone through the grounds and

reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application. In

our considered opinion, the grounds urged in support of the prayer for

grant of leave to appeal do not appear to be germane in view of the

law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Office of the Chief

Post Master General and others vs Living Media India Ltd and

another reported in 2012 STPL (LE) 46200 SC.

In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

aforesaid case, the application for condonation of delay cannot be

entertained and it is hereby rejected.

M.A. No. 949 of 2018

This is an application under section 31 (1) of the Armed Forces

Tribunal Act 2007 for grant of leave to appeal, having been moved by

the applicant beyond the period of 30 days. Even otherwise also, we

do not find any point of law of general public importance involved in

the decision so as to grant leave to appeal.

Since the application for condonation of delay in moving this

application has been rejected, in consequence thereof, this application

is also rejected.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


EX-A. No. 207 of 2017

Inre: O.A. No. 201 of 2011

Govind Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the

respondents.

None is present on behalf of the applicant.

On 22.03.2018, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that PPO was issued in pursuance of the order under execution. But

today submits that the said PPO was issued on the name of another

person and not on the name of applicant.

It is further submitted that the required documents have been

forwarded to competent authority on 31.03.2018 for issuance of the

correct PPO.


three weeks’ further time to file compliance report.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


EX-A. No. 33 of 2018

Inre: O.A. No. 220 of 2014

Narayan Datt Joshi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the

respondents.


Learned counsel for the respondents submits that steps have

been taken for issuance of the PPO. He prays for four weeks’ further

time to file compliance report.

Time prays for is granted.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 73 of 2018

Inre: O.A. No. Nil of 2018

Smt Rita Rani Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Dr Ashish Asthana, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Mohd Zafar Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that objection on

the application for condonation of delay is ready and the same shall be

filed in Registry during course of the day.


Meanwhile reply, if any, to the said objection may be filed by

learned counsel for the applicant.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 336 of 2018


Gurusaran Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Present: Shri Kavita Belaura, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri VPS Vats, learned counsel for the respondents.


two weeks’ time, as a last opportunity, to file objection on the

application for condonation of delay.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 939 of 2018


Raj Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Mrs Appoli Srivastava, Advocate on

behalf of the respondents is taken on record. Her name be shown as learned

counsel for the respondents, when the case is next listed.

Present: Shri Shiv Ganesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and

Mrs Appoli Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 939 of 2018

This is an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act read

with Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 for condoning the

delay in filing the O.A, which as per office report, is delayed by 10 years,

02 months and 01 day. Copy of this application has been served upon the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on 03.04.2018.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents prays for and

is granted six weeks’ time to file objection on the delay condonation

application. Replication, if any, may be filed by the learned counsel for the

applicant within two weeks’ thereafter.



Member (A) Member (J)

RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 950 of 2018


Mistar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Sunil Sharma, Advocate on behalf

of the respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as learned counsel

for the respondents, when the case is next listed.


applicant and Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 950 of 2018



delay in filing the O.A, which as per office report, is delayed by, 05 months

and 01 day. Copy of this application has been served upon the learned

Standing Counsel for the respondents on 02.04.2018.








RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 951 of 2018


Capt Parit Sagar Baburao Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Namit Sharma, Advocate on behalf




applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 951 of 2018



delay in filing the O.A, which as per office report, is delayed by 01 month

and 20 days. Copy of this application has been served upon the learned









RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 952 of 2018


Mohd Sabbir Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, Advocate on

behalf of the respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as learned


Present: Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 952 of 2018




02 months and 24 days. Copy of this application has been served upon the









RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 953 of 2018


Sri Prakash Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Dr Gyan Singh, Advocate on behalf of

the respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as learned counsel



and Gyan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 953 of 2018













RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 954 of 2018


Bashishtha Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajiv Pandey, Advocate on behalf




and Shri Rajiv Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 954 of 2018













RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 955 of 2018


Agam Rai Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri RKS Chauhan, Advocate on behalf




and Shri RKS Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 955 of 2018













RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 957 of 2018


Rajendra Prasad Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri GS Sikarwar, Advocate on behalf of



Present: Shri DS Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri GS

Sikarwar, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 957 of 2018



delay in filing the O.A, which as per office report, is delayed by 01 month.


is granted four weeks’ time to file objection on the delay condonation






PKG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 178 of 2018

Harjeet Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate on

behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

Present: Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

ORDER (Oral)

1. By means of this O.A., the applicant has challenged the show cause

notice. The matter is still pending for decision before the competent

authority and no final decision has yet been taken.

2. It is settled legal proposition that a show cause notice cannot be

challenged in the writ jurisdiction unless the authority, which has issued it,

is found to be having no jurisdiction in the matter, as held by the

Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co.

Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District 1st, Calcutta and

another, AIR 1961 SC 372, wherein the Court observed as under :

"It is well settled, however, that though the writ of prohibition or certiorari will not

be issued against an executive authority, the High Courts have power to issue, in a

fit case, an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without

jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority, parting without

jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and

unnecessary harassment, the High Court, it is well settled, will issue appropriate

orders or directions to prevent such consequences."

3. A similar view has subsequently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Special

Investigation Circle B, Nagar, (1965) 57 ITR 637; State Of Madras v.

Madurai Mills Co., Ltd. ., AIR 1967 SC 681; M/s. S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v.

Union of India and others, AIR 1976 SC 1115; Titaghur Paper Mills Co.

Ltd. and another v. State of Orissa and another, AIR 1983 SC 603;

Chief of Army Staff and others v. Maj. Dharam Pal Kukrety, AIR 1985

SC 703; Union of India and another v. M/s. Brij Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. and

others, (1993) 3 SCC 564; Union of India and others v. Upendra Singh,

(1994) 3 SCC 357; Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab13e4b014971140b96a

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab3fe4b014971140bfeb



https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab46e4b014971140c158

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab46e4b014971140c158

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abbfe4b014971140d33d



https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac1be4b014971140e0d3



https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac93e4b014971140f305



https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aca5e4b014971140f676

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609acbee4b014971140f99f

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609acbee4b014971140f99f

Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, AIR 1996 SC 691; Union of India and

others v. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. and others, (1996) 11 SCC 122

and Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and

others, (1998) 8 SCC 1.

4. While dealing with a similar issue in State of Uttar Pradesh v.

Brahm Datt Sharma and another, (1987) 2 SCC 179, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court observed as under:

"When a show-cause notice is issued to a Government servant under the statutory

provision seeking upon him to show cause ordinarily the Government servant must

place his case before the Authority concerned by showing cause and the Court

should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is

shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. An order

violating fundamental principles of law and causing substantial injustice to a party

may also be examined in a writ jurisdiction."

5. In view of the aforementioned legal position, this O.A. is premature,

misconceived and is hereby dismissed in limine.



PKG

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609acebe4b014971141011f

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609acebe4b014971141011f

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd361607dba63d7e6e044



https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac33e4b014971140e3ba



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 185 of 2018

Ram Avtar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Advocate on



Present: Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the respondents.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is a fit case

for admission.

Admit.


is granted four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if

any, may be filed by the learned counsel for the applicant within two weeks’

thereafter.




PKG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 186 of 2018

Raj Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, Advocate

on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as

learned counsel for the respondents, when the case is next listed.


and Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary

objection that this is a second O.A. for the same cause of action.

Let it be listed on 05.7.2018 for orders alongwith the records of

O.A.No. 328 of 2017.



PKG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 188 of 2018

Sant Ram Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, Advocate



Present: None appeared for the applicant. Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal,


In the interest of justice, the case is passed over for the day.




PKG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


DY-No. 3137 of 2018

Inre: High Court Allahabad WP No. 3369 of 2003

Kamlesh Kumar Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for Petitioner

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri VPS Vats, Advocate on behalf of the

respondents is taken on record.

Present: None appeared for the petitioner. Shri VPS Vats, learned

counsel for the respondents is present.

This Transferred Application has been received by transfer from the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in pursuance of the order

dated 01.04.2010, which reads as under :

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the

Central Government.

This writ petition raises a dispute which is within the jurisdiction of Armed

Forces Tribunal constituted under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Therefore, in view of Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and

the decision of this Court in the case of Devi Saran Mishra Vs. The Union of India

(W.P.No.6237/1990) decided on 25.02.2010, let the records of the present writ

petition be transmitted to the Armed Forces Tribunal at Lucknow.”

It appears that because of the array of parties, it was considered to be

a case cognizable by the Armed Forces Tribunal. But when we examined the

writ petition, then we found that the petitioner in the writ petition was not a

Member of the Army, Navy or Air Force, but he was a Member of the

Border Security Force, as is mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition,

which is quoted as under :

“2. That in the month January 2002, the petitioner was borne in the book of 19 Bn

BSF where he was working as a Constable. On 27th January 2002 it is alleged that

the petitioner had shot dead one Head Constable Raju of the same battalion and

thereby committed murder and secondly he was also charged for firing a shot at

Subedar Kesar Singh Bist of the same battalion with intent to kill him. The petitioner

was therefore charged on two counts under Section 46 of the BSF Act.

A copy of the charge-sheet Dt: 4th May 2002 is enclosed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE No.I to this petition.”

The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 has jurisdiction to try cases of

persons subject to Army Act, Navy Act or Air Force Act, including retired

person. At this stage, we would like to quote Section 2 of the Armed Forces

Act, 2007, which reads as under :

“2. Applicability of the Act

1. The provisions of this Act shall apply to all persons subject to the army Act,

1950, (46 of 1950) the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950

(45 of 1950)

2. This Act shall also apply to retired personnel subject to the Army Act, 1950

(46 of 1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or the Air Force Act, 1950(45 of

1950) including their dependants, heirs and successors, in so far as it relates to

their service matters.”

Since the petitioner is not a Member of any of the three Forces and is

not governed by any of the three aforementioned Acts, hence this

Transferred Application is not cognizable by this Tribunal.

Let the record be sent back to the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad for being placed before Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.



PKG

Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No.1

O.A.No. 248 of 2011

Mohammad Arif Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018


Judgment/order pronounced.

For orders, see my judgment/order of date passed on separate sheets.


Member (J)

LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 9 of 2017

Smt. Sharda Devi Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri P.K. Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Virat

Anand Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kaushik

Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondents.

Shri P.K. Shukla, Advocate submits that Shri Virat Anand

Singh is not available today and prays for adjournment of the case. In

the interest of justice, the case is adjourned for the day.


Meanwhile counter affidavit may be filed by learned counsel

for the respondents by the date fixed.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 265 of 2014

Abhishek Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri

Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

An adjournment is prayed on behalf of the respondents. As prayed, the

case is adjourned for the day.

List this case on 10.05.2018 for further hearing.

On the date fixed, learned counsel for the respondents shall produce

original documents pertaining to the case for perusal of the Bench.


Member (A) Member (J) ukt

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

Dy No. 438 of 2018 Inre T.A. No. 1257 of 2010

Ex Hav R.D. Tripathi Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Vakalatnama filed by Col Y.R. Sharma (Retd) on behalf of the

petitioner is taken on record. His name be shown as learned counsel

for the petitioner when the case is listed next.

Present: Col Y.R. Sharma (Retd), learned counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the

respondents.

On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case

is adjourned for the day.



produce original documents pertaining to the case for perusal of the

Bench.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1411 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1412 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 1278 of 2010

VV Khandekar Rao Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Shri Kaushik Chatterji, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 1411 of 2016 with M.A. NO 1412 of 2016

These two applications have been filed by learned counsel for

the petitioner; one for condonation of delay in filing restoration

application and the other for recall of order dated 30.04.2013 by

which petition was dismissed for non prosecution.

The reasons given in application for condonation of delay seem

to be genuine. Delay in filing recall application for condonation of

delay is allowed and delay is condoned subject to payment of cost of

Rs. 500/- which shall be deposited by learned counsel for the

petitioner in the Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association Library. On

production of receipt, the case shall be restored on its original number.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1270 of 2017 with M.A. No. 946 of 2018 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Sandeep Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri V.K. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri K.K. Misra,

learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Kaushik Chatterjee, learned


M.A. No. 1270 of 2017

By means of this application, the applicant has made prayer for grant

of maintenance allowance. As per office report, the application is delayed

by 02 months and 21 days in filing the original application. The reasons

given in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of

delay seem to be sufficient. Application for condonation of delay is

allowed. Delay in filing the Original Application is condoned. The

objection raised by the respondents is rejected.

Admit.

Let the case be registered as O.A.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four

weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be

filed by learned counsel for the applicant within two weeks, thereafter.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Pawan Kumar Dwivedi Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr.


After hearing at some length, we are of the opinion that service record

of the applicant needs to be perused to resolve the controversy in question.


On the date fixed, learned counsel for the parties shall produce original

documents pertaining to the case for perusal of the Bench.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 236 of 2016

Kunal Krishna Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Dr. Ashish Asthana, learned counsel for the


the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Arguments concluded

Order reserved.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 331 of 2017

Sunita Yadav M/o Late Sigmn Subhash Kumar Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Rajiv Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

The case was listed for hearing. Learned counsel for the

respondents submits that original documents pertaining to the

case are not available and prays for adjournment of the case.


On the date fixed, learned counsel for the parties shall


the Bench.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. (A) No. 279 of 2013

Manoj Kumar Sharma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: None for the applicant and Dr. Shailendra Sharma


Case was taken up in the revised list. Neither the applicant nor

his counsel is present to press this case.

On 29.01.2018, order was passed that no further adjournment

shall be granted to learned counsel for the applicant. Even thereafter

two adjournments have been prayed by learned counsel for the

applicant. It appears that learned counsel for the applicant is not

interested to pursue the case.

In view of the above, the case is dismissed for non prosecution.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. (A) No. 290 of 2015

Kaptan Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four

weeks’ further time to file supplementary rejoinder affidavit.




Bench.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 22 of 2016

Lal Chand Ram Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri R. Chandra , learned counsel for the petitioner and

Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he is still not

aware about the present status of the petitioner. Counter affidavit was

filed by the respondents in the year 2005. He prays for time to seek

instructions to file supplementary counter affidavit to being on record

present status of the petitioner.




Bench.

A copy of this order be provided to learned counsel for the

respondents.



Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


COURT NO.1

O.A. No. 215 of 2014

Rameshwar Dayal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the Registry


03.04.2018

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal BBP Sinha, Member (A)

Judgment pronounced.

Original Application No. 215 of 2014 is dismissed.

For orders, see our judgment and order of date passed on separate sheets.



MH/-

Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


COURT NO.1

O.A. No. 214 of 2014

Chunni Lal Yadav Applicant


Versus





03.04.2018







MH/-

Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


COURT NO.1

O.A. No. 325 of 2015

Rakesh Kumar Mishra Applicant


Versus





03.04.2018







MH/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. 412 of 2017

Yuva Raj Thapa Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri VK Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri KK

Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs Appoli Srivastava,


Learned counsel for the respondents submits that she shall file

counter affidavit in Registry during course of the day. A copy of the

same has been provided to learned counsel for the applicant in Court,

today.


weeks’ time to file rejoinder affidavit.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. 512 of 2017

Pratap Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri Parijaat Belaura, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that counter

affidavit is ready and shall file the same within a week after serving a

copy to learned counsel for the applicant.


Meanwhile, learned counsel for the applicant may file

rejoinder affidavit.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. 519 of 2017

Smt Sunita Jaiswal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri PK Shukla, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Virat

Anand Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal,


Shri PK Shukla, Advocate submits that Shri Virat Anand Singh,

learned counsel for the applicant has not come to the Court since he is

out of station.

An adjournment has been prayed on behalf of the respondents

to file counter affidavit.

Two weeks’ further time is granted to file counter affidavit.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. 32 of 2018

Trilok Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri PK Shukla, holding brief of Shri Virat Anand

Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs Appoli Shrivastava,



Arguments concluded.

Orders reserved.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. 84 of 2018

Mohan Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri R Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and

Dr Chet Narain Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.


two weeks’ further time to file counter affidavit.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by learned counsel for

the applicant within two weeks’, thereafter.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


T.A. 10 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1974 of 2017

Praveen Kumar Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 1974 of 2017

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is

taken on record. Accordingly, aforesaid M.A. stands disposed of.

Pleadings are complete.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for long date.

On his request, list this case on 10.05.2018 for hearing.

On the date fixed, parties shall file compilation of case law and

chart of events. Original record shall also be produced by the learned




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 938 of 2018


Dinesh Chandra Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri RC Shukla, Advocate on behalf of



Present: Shri RC Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 938 of 2018



delay in filing the O.A, which as per office report, is delayed by 08 years

and 03 months. Copy of this application has been served upon the learned









RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 181 of 2018

Mahesh Kumar Awasthi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri AN Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of



Present: Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri AN Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is a fit

case for admission.

Admit.


is granted six weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be

filed by the learned counsel for the applicant within two weeks’ thereafter.




RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


DY-No. 424 of 2018

Inre: T.A. No. 692 of 2010

Smt Laxmi Soni Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for Petitioner

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, Advocate on



Present: Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the

respondents.


Defects pointed out by the Registry has not been removed by the

applicant.


Meanwhile, applicant may rectify the defects.



RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 941 of 2018

Inre: O.A. No. 48 of 2016

Union of India & Others Applicants

By Legal Practitioner for Applicants

Versus

Smt Pinki Devi Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present: Shri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and

Maj Salen Xaxa, Departmental Representative.

M.A. No. 941 of 2018

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on this application,

moved under Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, praying

for grant of leave to appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2018 passed by this Court

in O.A. No. 48 of 2016.

We have carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and order

and we find that no point of law of general public importance is

involved in the matter so as to grant leave to appeal to Hon’ble Apex

Court.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal being

misconceived is hereby rejected.



RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Ex.A.No. 202 of 2017

Inre T.A. No. 15 of 2014 &

Inre T.A. No. 1368 of 2010

Maj Kunwar Ambreshwar Singh Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present : Shri PK Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Virat

Anand Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashish Agnihotri,


Ex.A.No. 202 of 2017

This is an application for execution of the order dated 11.08.2017

passed in T.A. No. 15 of 2014.

On the last date, the Court had directed the respondents to file

compliance report, failing which they have to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Today also compliance report has not been filed by the learned

counsel for the respondents and again adjournment is prayed. The cost

earlier imposed has also not been paid.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has received

instructions that SLP has been prepared. However, he has no instruction

regarding the compliance of the order under execution.

In view of this, we hereby direct the learned counsel for the

respondents to file compliance report on the next date fixed, failing which

they will have to pay additional cost of Rs.15,000/-. The cost become due

today, shall be paid to the petitioner within a week.


Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the

respondents within 24 hours free of cost.


Member (A) Member (J) PKG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A.No. 68 of 2018 with M.A. No.774 of 2018

Inre O.A.No. Nil of 2018

Satyendra Kumar Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present : Shri R Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri

Ashish Kumr Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No.774 of 2018

Objection filed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the

application for condonation of delay is taken on record. M.A. stands

disposed of.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not intend to

file reply to the objection.

M.A.No. 68 of 2018

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the O.A.

The grounds shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application

seem to be genuine.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the

O.A. is hereby condoned.

By means of this O.A., the applicant has prayed for the benefit of

rounding off of the disability pension, which is a recurring cause of action.

Admit.

Let the case be registered as O.A.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two

weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be

filed by the learned counsel for the applicant within one week thereafter.


On the date fixed, parties shall file compilation of case law and chart

of events. Original record shall also be produced by the learned counsel for

the respondents.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A.No. 260 of 2018 with M.A. No. 867 of 2018

Inre O.A.No. Nil of 2018

Siya Ram Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present : Mrs Kavita Belaura, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 867 of 2018

Objection filed by the learned counsel for the respondents is taken on

record. M.A. stands disposed of accordingly.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two

weeks’ time to file reply to the objection.

List this case on 24.05.2018 for orders on the application for

condonation of delay.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A.No. 214 of 2016

with M.A.Nos. 478 & 462 of 2018

Smt Rajni Verma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present : Shri Himanshu Vaish, learned counsel for the respondents.

In pursuance of our orders dated 30.01.2018 and 16.02.2018,

respondent no.2 Sundari Verma is present. However, neither the applicant

Smt. Rajni Verma herself nor any one on her behalf is present.

It is informed at the Bar that Shri PN Chaturvedi, learned counsel for

the applicant has expired.

Registry is directed to send notice to the applicant to make

alternative arrangement and to appear in person on the next date fixed.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A.No. 30 of 2017

PK Mahapatra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present : Shri PK Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Virat

Anand Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr Shailendra Sharma



learned counsel for the applicant is out of station and has not come to the

court and prays for adjournment of the case.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A.No. 282 of 2017

With M.A.No. 668 of 2018

Lt Col Harshwardhan Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present : Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri RKS Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A.No. 668 of 2018

Counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the respondents is

taken on record. M.A. stands disposed of accordingly.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that rejoinder affidavit is

ready and he shall file the same within a week.


On the date fixed, parties shall file compilation of case law and chart

of events. Original record shall also be produced by the learned counsel for

the respondents.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A.No. 330 of 2017

With M.A.No. 410 of 2018

Prem Veer Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.04.2018



Present :Shri PK Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Virat

Anand Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Adesh Kumar

Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.


learned counsel for the applicant is out of station and has not come to the

court and prays for adjournment of the case.


List this case on 16.05.2018 for orders

Meanwhile, rejoinder affidavit may be filed by the learned counsel

for the applicant.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ODER SHEET



(Inre: T.A. No. 79 of 2016)

Union of India & Others Petitioners

By Legal Practitioner for Petitioners

Versus

Smt Kanti Devi Respondent

By Legal Practitioner for Respondent

Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Present: Shri Anurag Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.

M.A. No. 921 of 2018



2007 for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated

10.01.2018, passed by this Court in T.A. No. 79 of 2016.












another reported in 2012 STPL (LE) 46200 SC in which the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has observed as under:

“Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as

an anticipated benefit for government departments” and since

“the claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited

bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be

accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and

available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody

including the Government.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed as under :

“Since the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant

with the issues involved including the prescribed period of

limitation ……..They cannot claim that they have a separate

period of limitation when the Department was possessed with

competent persons familiar with court proceedings”.




M.A. No. 922 of 2018



the petitioner beyond the period of 30 days. Since the application for

condonation of delay in moving this application has been rejected, in

consequence thereof, this application is also liable to be rejected.

Even otherwise also, we find that the matter pertains to grant of

disability pension but we do not find any point of law of general

public importance involved in the decision so as to grant leave to

appeal. Accordingly, this application is also rejected.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



(Inre: O.A. No. 6 of 2018)



Versus

Shiw Prasad Tripathi Respondent


Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Present: Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicants.

M.A. No. 927 of 2018




20.02.2018, passed by this Court in O.A. No. 06 of 2018.

As per stamp reporter’s report, there is delay of 03 days in filing

the application for leave to appeal. Section 31 (2) of the Armed Forces

Tribunal Act 2007 provides that the application for leave to appeal

shall be made for approaching Hon’ble Supreme Court within a period

of 30 days beginning with the date of decision of the Tribunal. Apart

from it, we have also gone through the grounds and reasons indicated

in the affidavit filed in support of the application. In our considered

opinion, the grounds urged in support of the prayer for grant of leave

to appeal do not appear to be germane in view of the law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master

General and others vs Living Media India Ltd and another

reported in 2012 STPL (LE) 46200 SC in which the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has observed as under:

















M.A. No. 928 of 2018



the applicant beyond the period of 30 days. Since the application for



Even otherwise also, we find that the matter pertains to release

the revised service pension in the rank of Hony Naib Supedar but we


the decision so as to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, this

application is also rejected.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



(Inre: O.A. No. 1 of 2011)

Praveen Kumar Pal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Anurag Mishra, Advocate,

on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

Present: Shri R Chandra, learned counsel for the applicants and

Shri Anurag Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

MA. No. 930 of 2018




19.01.2018 passed by this Court in O.A. No. 01 of 2011.












another reported in 2012 STPL (LE) 46200 SC.




M.A. No. 931 of 2018



the applicant beyond the period of 30 days. Even otherwise also, we


the decision so as to grant leave to appeal.

Since the application for condonation of delay in moving this

application has been rejected, in consequence thereof, this application

is also rejected.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



(Inre: O.A. No. 421 of 2017)



Versus

Satendra Singh Respondent


Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Present: Dr Chet Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the

applicants.

M.A. No. 932 of 2018




13.02.2018, passed by this Court in O.A. No. 421 of 2017.

As per stamp reporter’s report, there is delay of 12 days in filing

the application for leave to appeal. Section 31 (2) of the Armed Forces

Tribunal Act 2007 provides that the application for leave to appeal

shall be made for approaching Hon’ble Supreme Court within a period

of 30 days beginning with the date of decision of the Tribunal. Apart

from it, we have also gone through the grounds and reasons indicated

in the affidavit filed in support of the application. In our considered

opinion, the grounds urged in support of the prayer for grant of leave

to appeal do not appear to be germane in view of the law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master

General and others vs Living Media India Ltd and another

reported in 2012 STPL (LE) 46200 SC in which the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has observed as under:

















M.A. No. 933 of 2018



the applicant beyond the period of 30 days. Since the application for



Even otherwise also, we find that the matter pertains to refund of

pension amount for the extended period of notional service but we do

not find any point of law of general public importance involved in the

decision so as to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, this application

is also rejected.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


EX.A. No. 103 of 2017 with M.A. No. 2183 of 2017

(Inre: O.A. 283 of 2014)

Bramhanand Chauhan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Present: Shri VK Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and

Mrs Deepti P Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that order under

execution has already been complied with and a copy of the same has

been provided to the learned counsel for the applicant in Court today.


weeks’ further time to file a chart supported by an affidavit as per

order dated 07.03.2018.

List this case on .03.05.2018 for orders.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 923 of 2018


Vijay Pal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Anurag Mishra, Advocate on behalf



Present: Shri KK Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri

Anurag Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 923 of 2018













RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 924 of 2018


Sarvesh Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Mrs Anu Singh, Advocate on behalf of

the respondents is taken on record. Her name be shown as learned counsel


Present: Shri KK Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs

Anju Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 924 of 2018













RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 925 of 2018


Mohd Adil Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, Advocate on



Present: Shri KK Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr


M.A. No. 925 of 2018













RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 926 of 2018


Smt Usha Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Advocate on



Present: Shri Om Prakash Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 926 of 2018



delay in filing the O.A, which as per office report, is delayed by 01 year and

15 days. Copy of this application has been served upon the learned Standing

Counsel for the respondents on 23.03.2018.


is granted four weeks’ time to file objection on the delay condonation






RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 944 of 2018


Smt Bidhu Kalita Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Amit Jaiswal, Advocate on behalf of



Present: Shri BB Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri

Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 944 of 2018




17 days. Copy of this application has been served upon the learned Standing

Counsel for the respondents on 28.03.2018.








RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 945 of 2018


Fateh Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate on



Present: Shri BB Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri

Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 945 of 2018













RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 180 of 2018

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Virendra Singh, Advocate on behalf



Present: Shri Srish Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.


case for admission.

Admit.


is granted six weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be

filed by the learned counsel for the applicant within two weeks’ thereafter.




RS/*

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 182 of 2018

Nk Girraj Singh Tomar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Ashish Saxena, Advocate on behalf



Present: Maj RD Singh (Retd), learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Ashish Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.


case for admission.

Admit.


is granted four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may

be filed by the learned counsel for the applicant within two weeks’

thereafter.




RS/*

Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

M.A. No. 935 of 2018

In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2018

Dadhichi Rai & Others Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J)


Present: Shri S.K. Malviya, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Maj Salen Xaxa,

Departmental Representative for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to move

application under Rule 4, Sub Rule (5) of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules

2008.


(Air Marshal B.B.P. Sinha) Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) ukt

Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

Ex-A No. 03 of 2018 In re: T.A. No. 1402 of 2010

Anurag Singh Petitioner

By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Present: Shri K.K. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Namit Sharma,

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

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant had played fraud for

the purpose of enrolment. He submits that this fact was not considered by this Tribunal in

its judgment dated 01.12.2017 therefore the respondents intend to file SLP in the Hon’ble

Apex Court. He prays for further time for the purpose.

In this view of the matter, the case is adjourned.

List on 18.05.2018 for orders.


Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

Ex-A No. 34 of 2018 In re: O.A. No. 225 of 2016

Prem Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



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


Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance to judgment and

order dated 28.08.2017 the PPO has been issued. He undertakes to serve copy of the PPO

on learned counsel for the applicant during course of the day.

Since PPO has been issued, this execution application has served its purpose and

deserves to be rejected as infructuous.

It is accordingly disposed of.


Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

Ex-A No. 35 of 2018 In re: O.A. No. 226 of 2016

Hukam Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



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


Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance to judgment and

order dated 28.08.2017 the PPO has been issued. He undertakes to serve copy of the PPO

on learned counsel for the applicant during course of the day.

Since PPO has been issued, this execution application has served its purpose and

deserves to be rejected as infructuous.

It is accordingly disposed of.


Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

M.A No. 1555 of 2017 with M.A. No. 943 of 2018

M.A. No. 424 of 2018 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Smt Dilmani Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry




Present: Shri B.B. Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Saxena,


M.A. No. 424 of 2018

Objection on application for condonation of delay filed by learned counsel for the

respondents is taken on record. M.A. aforesaid is disposed of accordingly.

M.A. No. 943 of 2018

Replication to objection on application for condonation of delay is taken on record.

M.A. aforesaid is disposed of accordingly.

M.A No. 1555 of 2017

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing Original Application. The

matter relates to grant of pension which involves recurring cause of action. Application is

allowed and delay is condoned.

Admit.

Counter affidavit be filed by learned counsel for the respondents within four weeks.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by learned counsel for the applicant within two

weeks, thereafter.


(Air Marshal B.B.P. Sinha) Justice S.V.S. Rathore)

Member (A) Member (J) Ukt

Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

M.A No. 302 of 2018 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2018

Bom Bahadur Thapa Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Present: Shri B.B. Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Asheesh

Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to file objection on application for

condonation of delay in the Registry during course of the day after serving a copy thereon

on learned counsel for the applicant.


Meanwhile learned counsel for the applicant may file replication if any.


Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

O.A No. 190 of 2017 with M.A. No. 514 of 2018

Ram Abhilakh Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Present: Shri Surya Prakash Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish

Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal

Cell.

M.A. No. 514 of 2018

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. M.A.

aforesaid is disposed of accordingly.

O.A. No. 190 of 2017

Pleadings have been exchanged.


On the date fixed, learned counsel for the respondents shall submits original records

pertaining to case for perusal of the Bench.



Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

O.A No. 305 of 2017

Rajbeer Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



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


Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks further time

to move application for amending the prayer clause.




ukt

Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

O.A No. 324 of 2017

TD Kolekar Applicant


Versus

Chief of Army Staff & Others Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



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

Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Last opportunity is granted to learned counsel for the respondents to file counter

affidavit within four weeks failing which opportunity to file counter affidavit shall stand

closed. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by learned counsel for the applicant within

two weeks, thereafter.




Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

O.A No. 395 of 2017 with M.A. No. 428 of 2018

Najar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



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

Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC

Legal Cell.

M.A. No. 428 of 2018

Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the respondents is taken on record.

M.A. aforesaid is disposed of accordingly.

O.A. No. 395 of 2017

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four seeks time to file

rejoinder affidavit.




Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

O.A No. 533 of 2017

Saljor Ram Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Present: None for the applicant and Ms Anju Singh, 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 further

time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by learned counsel

for the applicant within two weeks, thereafter.




Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

O.A No. 637 of 2017

Subash Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Present: Shri R.C. Dixit, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks further

time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by learned counsel

for the applicant within two weeks, thereafter.




Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

O.A No. 78 of 2018

Lt Col KV Gopalakrishna Iyer (Retd) Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Vakalatnama filed by Shri Amit Chandra, Advocate, on behalf of respondent No 5 is

taken on record. His name shall be shown in the cause list when the case is next listed.

Present: Col Y.R. Sharma (Retd), Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit

Chandra, and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj

Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Shri Amit Chandra, learned counsel for respondent No 5 prays for time to bring on

record details of the payment and recovery to be made from the applicant by means of an

affidavit.


Meanwhile counter affidavit may be filed by remaining respondent s.



Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

O.A No. 174 of 2015

Jageshwar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



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

Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal

Cell.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for adjournment on the ground that he

could not prepare the case. Accordingly, the case is adjourned.

List again on 03.07.2018 for hearing.




Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

O.A No. 236 of 2016

Kunal Krishna Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Present: Shri Jitendar Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Dr. Shailendra

Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal

Cell.

On request made by learned counsel for the applicant, hearing of the case is

adjourned.





Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

O.A No. 09 of 2017

Smt Radha Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Present: None for the applicant and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for

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

List has been revised. Neither the applicant nor her counsel is present to press the

case. A perusal of the order shows that on the previous date of listing also, none was

present on behalf of the applicant.

Accordingly, the case is dismissed for non prosecution.

(Air Marshal B.B.P. Sinha) Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (A) Member (J)

ukt

Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

T.A No. 69 of 2013

Smt Omi Devi W/o

Col Dayanand Petitioner

By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus



Notes of the

Registry




Present: Col Rakesh Johri (Retd), Shri B.P.S. Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner and Shri R.K.S. Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj

Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Col Rakesh Johri (Retd) submits that Col R.N. Singh(Retd), the arguing counsel, is

not available today and prays for adjournment of the case. Accordingly, the case is

adjourned.






Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No 1

R.A. No 23 of 2018 alongwith M.A. No 755 of 2018

Inre O.A. No 183 of 2016

Union of India and Others Applicants/Respondents

By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant/Respondents

Versus

Smt Bhagwan Devi Respondent/Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for Respondent/Applicant

Notes of the

Registry




Present: Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicants/respondents and

Shri K.K. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ applicant.

Learned counsel for the Applicants/respondent is directed to provide copy of the

review Applicant to learned counsel for the respondent/Applicant during the course of the

day who may file objection, if any, by the next date of listing.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Ex.A.No. 56 of 2018

Inre O.A. No. 303 of 2016

Rajiv Tandon Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Advocate



Present : Shri KK Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr


Ex.A.No. 56 of 2018


passed in O.A. No. 303 of 2016.

Since the matter relates to Navy and the representative of the Navy

shall remain present on 24.05.2018, list this case on 24.05.2018 for orders.

Meanwhile, respondents shall file explanation as to why the order

under execution has not been complied with.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Ex.A.No. 57 of 2018


Ganesh Prasad Kushwaha Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of Shri Namit Sharma, Advocate filed on behalf of the

respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as learned counsel for

the respondents, when the case is next listed.

Present : Shri Prakash Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

Ex.A.No. 57 of 2018

This is an application for execution of the order dated 25th July 2017


It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the PPO has been

issued in November 2017 and a copy of the same has been provided to the

learned counsel for the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not received

any payment as there is some error in the PPO. Learned counsel for the

applicant is directed to bring on record the said PPO alongwith an

application for correction of the PPO, so that necessary correction in the

PPO may be made.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Ex.A.No. 58 of 2018

Inre T.A. No. 28 of 2013

Jagdish Singh Yadav Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of appearance filed by Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Advocate



Present : Shri R Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.


Ex.A.No. 58 of 2018



It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in

the PPO issued by PCDA (P), Allahabad, CPPC has been mentioned as

SBI, 4 Kutchery |Road, Allahabad, whereas the applicant’s SBI, Mathura

comes under CPPC, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. Thus, it has wrongly been

issued in favour of CPPC, SBI, Allahabad instead of CPPC, Chandani

Chowk, Delhi.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four

weeks’ time to seek instructions.




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A.No. 917 of 2018 with M.A. No.916 of 2018


Naik Talab Husain Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.04.2018



Memo of Shri Amit Jaiswal, Advocate filed on behalf of the

respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as learned counsel for

the respondents, when the case is next listed.

Present : Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No.916 of 2018

Application for amendment filed by the learned counsel for the

applicant is taken on record. M.A. stands disposed of.

M.A. No.917 of 2018

This is an application for correction of the order dated 05.07.2017

passed in O.A.No. 39 of 2016.

By the said application, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed

correction in the Army Number of the applicant as 13609232X and also

name of the applicant as ‘Talab Husain Shah’ in the order.

From perusal of the record, it appears that said mistakes have been

made up by the applicant in the O.A. itself.

In view of this, we hereby grant leave to the applicant to correct the

O.A. during the course of the day and thereafter the order shall be

corrected.

The correction application stands disposed of accordingly.



Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No.1

O.A. No. 87 of 2016 with

M.A. No.2238/2017, M.A. No. 2056/2017 & M.A. No.765/2016.

Diwan Singh - Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.03.2018


Present: Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, assisted by

Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Case called out.

None appeared on behalf of the applicant.

In the interest of justice, list this case for hearing on 09.04.2018 at 02.00 P.M.


Member (J)

JPT

Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)}


Court No.1

O.A. No. 282 of 2016

Varun Kumar Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.03.2018


Present: Shri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Shailendra

Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal

Cell.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that earlier the applicant had

preferred a writ petition in the High Court, which was transferred to this Tribunal and

registered as T.A. No.1221 of 2010, wherein the applicant had prayed only for the

disability pension and had not raised any claim with regard to grant of battle casualty

pension. It is submitted that the said record be summoned and this case be heard alongwith

the record of said case.

List this case alongwith the record of T.A. No. 1221 of 2010 for hearing on

09.04.2018 at 02.00 P.M.

(Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (J)

JPT

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 248 of 2011

Mohd Arif Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.03.2018


Present : Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, Departmental Representative.


Arguments heard.

Judgment is reserved.


Member (J) PKG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 1065 of 2010

RN Mishra Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.03.2018


List has been revised.

None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Dr Shailendra

Sharma Atal is present on behalf of the respondents.

In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned for the day.



Member (J) PKG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 1103 of 2010

RN Mishra Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.03.2018


List has been revised.

None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Dr Shailendra

Sharma Atal is present on behalf of the respondents.

In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned for the day.



Member (J) PKG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 911 of 2018 In Re: OA No. (NIL) of 2018

Smt Urmila Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



Notes of the Registry Orders of the Tribunal

28.03.2018

Since one of the Hon’ble Members (Hon’ble

Air Marshal BBP Sinha) is on leave, the Court will

not assemble today.

List the case on 13.04.2018 for orders.

I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

Ex-A 176 of 2017 in Re TA No. 211 of 2009

Lila Dhar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and ors Respondents



28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Niranjan Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for Petitioner

Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Vinay Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for Petitioner

Versus


By Legal Practitioner for Respondents Notes of the Registry Orders of the Tribunal

28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

MA No. 708 of 2017 in Re OA No. NIL of 2017

Vidhi Narayan Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

MA No. 1155 of 2017 with MA No. 1156 of 2017 in Re MA Nos. 1604 of 2016, 1605

of 2016 In Re: TA No. 1285 of 2010

Rakesh KumarSingh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for Petitioner

Versus



28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Badam Singh Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

MA No. 2035 of 2017 with MA No. 454 of 2018 in Re OA No. NIL of 2017

Sanjay Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

MA No. 2302 of 2017 with MA No. 606 of 2018 in Re OA No. NIL of 2017

Nathu Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Dhag Bahadur Gurung Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Prem Singh Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Panch Deva Sharma & anr Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No. 307 of 2016 with MA No. 427 of 2018 & MA No. 1976 of 2017

Jagirman Rai Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No. 516 of 2017

Munisha Devi Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No. 615 of 2017 with MA. No. 902 of 2018

Layak Singh Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No. 647 of 2017

Sushant Kumar Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No. 56 of 2018

Om Prakash Singh Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No. 91 of 2018

Maneesh Kumar Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

TA No. 39 of 2017

Govind Singh Negi Petitioner


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

TA No. 970 of 2010

Rajput Chandrapal Singh Petitioner


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.

List the case on 06.04.2018 for further

hearing.

I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No. 109 of 2014

Mukesh Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



28.03.2018



not assemble today.

List the case on 09.05.2018 for hearing.

I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No. 47 of 2016

Akhilesh Kumar Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No. 178 of 2016

Kushal Yadav Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No. 120 of 2017

V.P. Singh Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No. 446 of 2017

Smt Meera Devi Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No. 700 of 2017

Raj Bhan Singh Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

OA No.115 of 2018

Rajeshwari Devi Applicant


Versus




28.03.2018



not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Bly

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX-A No. 141 of 2017 Inre: T.A. No. 947 of 2010

Lt Col Vinod Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for Petitioner

Versus




26.03.2018

Since one of the Hon’ble Members (Air Marshal

B.B.P. Sinha) is on leave, the court will not assemble today.


I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX-A No. 167 of 2017 Inre: T.A. No. 1273 of 2010

Santosh Kumar Singh Petitioner


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX-A No. 194 of 2017 Inre: O.A. No. 99 of 2016

Kishan Kumar Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX-A No. 30 of 2018 Inre: O.A. No. 119 of 2017

Smt Rajwati Yadav Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1326 of 2017 Inre: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Manpreet Kaur Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1



Smt Monika Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1



Smt Rambeti W/O Late Sep Rajendra Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 130 of 2018


Devendra Kumar Verma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 131 of 2018


Udaibir Singh Teotia Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 205 of 2018


Ram Sabad Singh & another Applicants


Versus




26.03.2018



List this case on 21.05.2018 for order.

I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 250 of 2018


Smt Savitri Chand Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 156 of 2016

Balavikraman Nair R Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 271 of 2017

Chintamani Mishra Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 313 of 2017

Smt Mithilesh Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 392 of 2017

Chandra Kumar Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 418 of 2017

Vidyawati Devi Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 432 of 2017

Santosh Kumar Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Smt Mithlesh Devi alias Lali Devi Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 520 of 2017

Smt Krishna Thapa Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 675 of 2017

Thiyam Tomba Singh Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 73 of 2018

Smt Bobby Devi Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 75 of 2018

Kamlesh Kumar Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 100 of 2018

Surendra Pal Verma Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 103 of 2018

Ayodhya Prasad Singh Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 17 of 2017

RK Kashyap Petitioner


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 20 of 2017

Dhananjay Kumar Petitioner


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Chandra Ballabh Bhatt (Deceased)

Through Smt Madhuri Bhatt and another Applicant


Versus

Chief of Naval Staff & Others Respondents



26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 522 of 2017

Niyaz Ahmed Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 527 of 2017

I S Mishra Applicant


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 1of 2014

Sarbeswar Pattanaik Petitioner


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 10 of 2016

Yogendra Prasad Petitioner


Versus




26.03.2018




I/C Registrar

order sheet armed forces tribunal, regional bench, …aftlko.up.nic.in/c1 daily order/c1 order...

Documents