order sheet armed forces tribunal, regional bench, …aftlko.up.nic.in/c3 daily order/c3 order-sheet...

Form No. 4 [See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1277 of 2014

Lt Col Rohit 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

30.09.2014

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mateen, Member (J)

Hon’ble Lt. Gen. A.M. Verma, Member (A)

Present: K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant,

List this case before the appropriate Bench having jurisdiction

on 17.10.2014.

(Lt. Gen A.M. Verma) (Justice Abdul Mateen)

Member (A) Member (J)

PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1559 of 2014

Keshar Bahadur Tamang Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014



Present: Shri Yash Pal Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the

applicant, Shri Mukund Tewari, learned Standing Counsel, and Capt.

Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that he has been

provided photo-copies of the papers on file but he is not in possession

of the papers relating to SCM proceedings initiated against the

applicant.

Shri Mukund Tewari, learned Standing Counsel, is directed to

provide photo-copies of the entire SCM proceedings to Shri Yash Pal

Singh within four weeks to enable Shri Singh, who has been appointed

Amicus Curiae by the order of this Court dated 10.9.2014, to prepare

the case.

List again on 3.11.2014.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

EX-A. No. 54 of 2013 with M.A. No. 815 of 2014 & M.A. No. 1233 of 2014

(Inre- O.A. No. 101 of 2010)

Raghunath Tripathi Applicant

In person

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014



Present: Shri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents,

and Sgt. Subhendu Dutta, Departmental Representative.

List has been revised. The applicant, who is appearing in

person, is not present.

List again on 8.10.2014.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 975 of 2013 with R.A. No 39 of 2013

(Inre- T.A. No. 71 of 2010)

Rajendra Bahadur Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014



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

Mukund Tewari, learned Counsel for the respondents, and Capt. Priti

Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

This is an Execution Application.

List this case before the appropriate Bench having jurisdiction

on 27.10.2014.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 30 of 2010

P. Venkat Reddy Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014



Present: Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant,

Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents, and Capt.


This case has been wrongly listed before this Court. List before

the appropriate Court having jurisdiction in the matter on 19.11.2014.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 245 of 2012 with M.A. No. 995 of 2014

Vidyapati Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014




D.S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondents, and Capt. Priti


Misc. Application No. 995 of 2012.

This application for amendment in the prayer clause of the

Original Application has been filed by the applicant.

Since the amendment sought for by the applicant does not

change the nature of the case, as such this application is allowed. The

amendment be incorporated in the memo of Original Application

during the course of the day.

As prayed, list on 11.12.2014 before the appropriate Bench.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 193 of 2013

Hav Ajay Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014



Present: Shri R. Chandra holding brief of Shri K.C. Ghildiyal,

learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Dileep Singh, learned Counsel

for the respondents, and Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental

Representative.

Shri R. Chandra prays for and is granted four weeks‟ further

time to file rejoinder affidavit. Shri Chandra further states that this

case shall be argued by Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, who is not present today.




PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 139 of 2014

Prabhat Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014



Present: Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant, Shri Mukund Tewari, learned Counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted

four weeks‟ further time to file counter affidavit.

List on 14.11.2014.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 490 of 2012

Pradeep Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014



Present: Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

On call of the case a request has been made by Shri Ishraq

Farooqui, Standing Counsel, states that Shri Rohit Kumar, learned

counsel for the applicant, is not well and has not come to the Court

today. Shri Farooqui, therefore, prays that the case be adjourned.

Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.




PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A.(A). No. 518 of 2012

Gajendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014



Present: Shri D.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents,

and Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

On call of the case Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the

respondents, states that Col. Y.R. Sharma (Retd.), learned counsel for

the applicant, has gone out of station. Shri Pandey, therefore, prays

that the case be adjourned. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the

day.

List on 16.12.2014 before the appropriate Bench.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A.(A). No. 3 of 2013

Shyambir Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014



Present: Shri D.S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondents,


List has been revised. None is present for the applicant, neither

there is any request to adjourn/pass over the case. Accordingly,

O.A.(A) No. 3 of 2013 is dismissed for non-prosecution.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 1210 of 2010

Gajraj Singh Tomar Applicant


Versus

Chief of Army Staff & Others Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014












PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 1455 of 2010

Sarvjit Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014












PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 39 of 2011

Sanobar S. Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.09.2014



Present: Shri Dileep Singh, learned Counsel for the

respondents, and Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

List has been revised. None is present for the applicant, neither

there is any request to adjourn/pass over the case. Accordingly,

Transferred Application No. 39 of 2011 is dismissed for non-

prosecution.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 497 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1186 of 2014

Vijay Kumar Mandal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.09.2014




On call of the case Shri Rakesh Johri, Advocate, appeared and

stated that Lt. Col. A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, has

not come to the Court yet. He, therefore, prays that the case be

adjourned. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.




PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Salil Chandra Jagdev Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.09.2014



Present: Shri V.A. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Capt.


Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

It comes out from the record of the case that the amendment

application has been allowed far back but inspite of sufficient time granted

to the applicant neither the amendments have been incorporated nor

amended copies of the Original Application have been filed as yet.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays a last opportunity to amend

the Original Application and to file amended copies of the Original

Application.

As a matter of last opportunity ten days and no more time is granted

to learned counsel for the applicant for the purpose after serving copies of

the same on learned counsel for the respondents.

List for order on 5.11.2014 before the appropriate Bench.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 129 of 2013

Rajendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.09.2014



Present: Shri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant,

Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, learned Counsel for the respondents, and

Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.


This is an application for amendment of the Original

Application, filed by the applicant on 11.4.2014. After affording

several opportunities to the respondents no objection has been filed by

the respondents as yet.

The amendments required to be incorporated in the Original

Application, filed by the applicant, against an order passed on General

Court Martial sentencing the applicant to imprisonment for life and

dismissal from service.

We have gone through the amendment application and we find

that if the amendments, sought to be incorporated, are allowed, there

will be no change in the substantial question of this case. Accordingly,

we allow this amendment application. The applicant is directed to

incorporate the amendments and file amended copies of the Original

Application, after serving copies of the same on learned counsel for

the respondents, within three weeks.

List for orders on 7.11.2014 before the appropriate Bench.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Praveen Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.09.2014




and Sgt. Subhendu Dutta, Departmental Representative.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that he has already

filed rejoinder affidavit in the month of August, 2014 but the same is

not on record.

The office is directed to trace out the rejoinder affidavit, filed

by the applicant, and place the same in the record of the case.

As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list this case on

5.12.2014 before the appropriate Bench.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 1065 of 2010 with M.A. No 1116 of 2014

R.N. Mishra Applicant

In person.

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.09.2014



Present: The applicant, Shri R.N. Mishra, in person, Shri

Mukund Tewari, learned Counsel for the respondents, and Sgt.

Subhendu Dutta, Departmental Representative.


This is an application for amending the writ petition.

Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents,

states that this amendment application is a bulky one and he needs

time to go through it.

Shri Tewari prays for and is granted six weeks‟ time to file

objection on the pleadings and on the grounds, sought to be amended

by the applicant.

As prayed six weeks time is granted to the respondents to file

objection, if any.

List this case on 4.12.2014 before the appropriate Bench.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 69 of 2013 with M.A. No. 508 of 2013

Col. Dayanand Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.09.2014



Present: Shri Rakesh Johri, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri

Mukund Tewari, learned Counsel for the respondents, and Capt. Priti Tyagi,

Departmental Representative.

This Misc. application No. 508 of 2013 has been filed by the

applicant for providing copy of the proceedings of General Court Martial.


It has been pleaded in this application that earlier a copy of the GCM

proceedings was provided to the applicant but due to some reason or the

other it has been misplaced.

In the interest of justice, we allow this Misc. Application No. 508 of

2013 and direct the respondents to provide a copy of the GCM proceedings

to learned counsel for the applicant within two days.





PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 64 of 2011

Vijay Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.09.2014



Present: Shri P.C. Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant,

Shri R.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents and Capt. Priti


Amended copy of the Original Application has not yet been

filed by learned counsel for the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted three

weeks‟ time to file amended copy of the Original Application after

serving a copy of the same on learned counsel for the respondents.





PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 427 of 2012

Sajan Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Mukund Tewari on behalf of

respondents no. 1 to 6 is taken on record. When the case is next listed,

his name be shown as counsel for the said respondents.

Present: Shri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant,

Shri Mukund Tewari, learned Counsel for the respondents, and Capt.


Heard learned counsel for the applicant on this Original

Application.

It has been alleged by the applicant in this O.A. that he has

been convicted in SCM without there being any evidence against him

thereby reducing him from to ranks and dismissed from service.

The matter relates to a stolen scooter of Nursing Officer Maj.

Sulekha on 21.12.2010. An F.I.R. was lodged in this regard at P.S.

Sadar Bazar, Lucknow, and the applicant has been roped in, in the

case.

Learned counsel for the respondents, who has filed his memo of

appearance today, prays that some time be granted to him to prepare

the brief.

As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents, list this case

on 11.11.2014 before the appropriate Bench.

On the next date the original record of SCM proceedings shall

be produced by the respondents before this Court.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1539 of 2014

Smt. Savita Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014



Present: Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant,







ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1540 of 2014

Brahma Nand Chauhan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014










ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1562 of 2014

Muhammad Aasif Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014










ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1245 of 2014

Ajay Pal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014



Present: Smt. Mamta Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant,







ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1252 of 2014

Shib Bahadur Gurung Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014










ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1253 of 2014

Sukhpal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014



Present: Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, and

Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 280 of 2014 with M.A. No. 890 of 2014 & M.A. No. 1104 of 2014

Awdesh Kumar Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014



Present: Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri

S.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, and Capt. Priti


Heard learned counsel for the applicant on this Misc.

Application No. 280 of 2014 for condoning the delay in filing the

Original Application.

As per office report, there is delay of 1 year, 7 months and 23

days in filing the Original Application.

The matter is discharge from service of the applicant.


three weeks‟ time to file objection indicating therein the date of

discharge of the applicant, as pleaded in paragraph nos. 4.9 and 4.14 in

the Original Application.





ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Paras Nath Tiwari Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014



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

Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondents, and Capt. Priti Tyagi,


This Misc. Application No. 733 of 2014 has been filed by the

applicant for condoning the delay in filing the Original Application.

As per office report, there is delay of 6 years, 6 months and 1 day in

filing the Original Application.

The matter pertains to disability pension.

We have gone through the application, supported with an affidavit,

for condoning the delay in filing the Original Application and the objection

filed by the respondents as well as reply to the objection filed by the

applicant.

The reasons shown in the affidavit filed along with the delay

condonation application seems to be genuine and justifiable to condone the

delay in filing the Original Application. Accordingly, the application is

allowed and the delay in filing the Original Application is hereby condoned




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 198 of 2014



Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014



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

Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondents, and Capt. Priti Tyagi,


Heard.

Admit.

Counter affidavit may be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit,

if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.





ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1067 of 2014

Baiju Kumar NK Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014



Present: Col. B.P. Singh (Retd.), learned counsel for the

applicant, Shri Ishraq Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondents,


Learned counsel for the respondents states that objection to the

delay condonation application is almost ready and he has to file the

same after getting it sworn. Let him do so within two days.





ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1084 of 2014

Bhagwati Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014



Present: Shri D.C. Lohumi, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms.

Deepti Prasad Bajpai learned counsel for the respondents, and Capt.


Learned counsel for the respondents states that objection to the

delay condonation application is almost ready and she will file the

same before the Registry within two days. Let her do so after a serving

a copy of the same on learned counsel for the applicant, who may file

rejoinder affidavit within two weeks.

List on 16.10.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


(Inre: T.A. No. 1179 of 2010)

Ram Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar on behalf of

respondents no. 1 to 6 is taken on record.

Present: Shri P.K. Shukla & Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel

for the applicant, Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the


Heard Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant on

Misc. Application No. 1251 of 2014, filed under Section 31 of the

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

This Misc. Application No. 1251 of 2014 for condoning the

delay in filing the application for leave to appeal has been filed by the

applicant.

As per office report, the application for leave to appeal is

delayed by 01 year, 06 months and 01 day.

As per provisions of Section 31(2) of the Armed Forces

Tribunal Act, 2007 an application to the Tribunal for leave to appeal to

the Supreme Court shall be made within a period of thirty days

beginning with the date of the decision of the Tribunal.

There is a specific rider under Section 31(2) of the Armed

Forces Tribunal Act which provides that “An appeal to the Supreme

Court shall lie with the leave of the Tribunal; and such leave shall not

be granted unless it is certified by the Tribunal that a point of law of

general public importance is involved in the decision, or it appears to

the Supreme Court that the point is one which ought to be considered

by that Court.”

The application itself is beyond time. Apart from it , while

going through the judgment against which leave to appeal has been

prayed we do not find any point of law of general public importance is

involved in the judgment for granting leave to file appeal before the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

Accordingly, we hereby reject Misc. Application No. 1251 of

2014 for condonation of delay.

Since the application for condonation of delay has been

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

also rejected. .




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 07 of 2014

Lt. Col. P. Vinay Kakkar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.09.2014



Present: Smt. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, learned counsel for the


On call of the case Shri A.K. Saxena, Advocate, appeared and

stated that Shri Rakesh Johri, learned counsel for the applicant is ill

and as such he has not come to this Court. Shri Saxena prays that the

case be adjourned.


As prayed, list on 21.11.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

Dy. No. 1639 of 2014

Manoj Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.09.2014




respondents Nos. 1 to 6 is taken on record. When the case is next

listed, his name be shown as counsel for the said respondents.

Present: Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant, Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents,


Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant,

states that he intends to file application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act. He, therefore, prays for and is granted a week‟s time

to file the same.

List on 8.10.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1243 of 2014

Gir Raj Tomar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Prakhar Kankan on behalf of



Present: Maj R.D. Singh (Retd), learned counsel for the

applicant, Shri Prakhar Kankan, learned counsel for the respondents,

and Major Narender Singh, Departmental Representative.



As per office report, there is delay of 8 months and 5 days in


However, while going through the Original Application and the

affidavit filed in support of the Original Application, we find that in

the affidavit the age of the applicant has not been mentioned therein

and the Original Application is based upon the affidavit itself.

Since the affidavit itself is defective, the Original Application

cannot be said to correct and entertainable in the eyes of law.

In any case, in the interest of justice, we hereby grant a week‟s

time to the applicant to file affidavit afresh in support of the Original

Application.

List on 10.10.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 195 of 2014

Sub B.S. Chandel Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Dileep Singh on behalf of

respondents Nos. 1 to 5 & 7 is taken on record. When the case is next


Present: Shri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri

Dileep Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, and Capt. Priti


Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission of this


Through this Original Application the applicant has prayed for

quashing of the order dated 30.6.2014 for attachment pending

disciplinary action. It also comes out that against the said order the

applicant has preferred an appeal dated 18.6.2014, by post, before the

Chief of the Army Staff.

Section 21(2)(b) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007

provides that Application shall not ordinarily be admitted by this

Tribunal unless six months period expired after submission of appeal

before the competent authority.

We are, therefore, of the view that since the applicant has

preferred his appeal before the Chief of Army Staff, by post, only on

18.6.2014 and neither the appeal has been decided nor the period of

six months have expired from the date of receipt of the appeal by the

office of the Chief of the Army Staff, this Original Application has

prematurely been filed before this Tribunal.

As such without entering into the merits of the case, this

Original Application No. 195 of 2014, being premature, is dismissed

at the admission stage itself.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

Ex. A. No. 35 of 2014

Inre O.A. No. 226 of 2013 & Ex.A. No.115 of 2013

Ram Pal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.09.2014






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

Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents, and Major

Narender Singh, Departmental Representative.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on this Execution

Application No. 35 of 2014 preferred on behalf of the applicant, Ram

Pal, alleging therein that a great injustice has been done against him by

not complying the judgment and order passed in T.A. No. 1484 of

2010 as far back as on 8.10.2012 setting aside the conviction and

sentence of the applicant including dismissal from service and since

the aforesaid judgment was not implemented the applicant moved

representation before the respondents for his reinstatement, which was

disposed of by the respondents ignoring the aforesaid judgment of this

Tribunal passed in the aforesaid Transferred Application.

Consequently, the applicant preferred O.A. No. 226 of 2013 which

was disposed of on 5.8.2013 by this Tribunal with a speaking order

directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 21.1.2013

within three months from the date of the order.

It is also one of such unfortunate cases where we find that the

judgment passed by this Tribunal is not being implemented unless and

until execution application is filed.

Earlier also aggrieved against non-implementation of the

judgment and order dated 8.10.2012 passed in T.A. No. 1484 of 2010

Execution Application No. 115 of 2013 was filed by the applicant

which was disposed of vide order dated 13.5.2014, passed by this

Court. While disposing of the Execution Application No. 115 of 2013

the respondents stated that S.L.P. No. 8602 of 2014 had been preferred

by the respondents in the month of March, 2014 before the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court but no interim order was passed by the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in the aforesaid S.L.P. As such, finding no other option

we disposed of the Execution Application No. 115 of 2013 observing

that “mere pendency of S.L.P. will not give the right to the

respondents not to implement the judgment and order passed by this

Tribunal.” and accordingly a direction was issued to the respondents

“to reinstate the applicant forthwith in view of judgment and order

passed by this Tribunal in T.A. No. 1484 of 2010 within a period of

two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this

order; of course subject to any further order passed, in the meantime,

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

The above order was passed by this Court on 13.5.2014 in

Execution Application No. 115 of 2013, but neither the judgment of

this Court, passed in T.A. No. 1484 of 2010, nor the order dated

13.5.2014, passed in Execution Application No. 115 of 20123 has

been complied with.

Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents,

prays for and is granted a week‟s time to obtain instruction with a note

that this Court is going to take serious view on the conduct of the

respondents for not complying the aforesaid judgment and order

passed in T.A. No. 1484 of 2010 and the order dated 13.5.2014,

p[assed in Execution Application No. 115 of 2013 and if the same are

not complied with, the concerned respondents shall be prepared to face

the consequences on the next date.

List this case on 9.10.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 1246 of 2014

Inre O. A. No. 123 of 2011 with O. A. No. 40 of 2011

Girija Shankar Tiwari Applicant

Applicant in person

Versus

Union of India & Others

Respondents


Notes of

the

Registry


25.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar on behalf

of the respondents is taken on record. When the case is next

listed, his name be shown as counsel for the respondents.

Present: Applicant, Girija Shankar Tiwari, in person and

Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

This Misc. Application No. 1246 of 2014 has been moved

by the applicant for correction of the order dated 10.7.2014,

passed by this Court, wherein the name of the applicant has been

shown as „Girish Shankar Tiwari‟ instead of „Girija Shankar

Tiwari‟.

While going through the Original Application we find that

the contention of the applicant is correct and the name of the

applicant, due to typographical error, has wrongly been

mentioned as „Girish Shankar Tiwari‟ instead of „Girija Shankar

Tiwari‟.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is hereby

observed that in the aforesaid order dated 10.7.2014 the name of

the applicant be read as ‘Girija Shankar Tiwari’ instead of

„Girish Shankar Tiwari‟.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

Ex. A. No. 101 of 2013 with M.A. No. 615 of 2014

Inre O. A. No. 134 of 2011

Col P.L. Sharma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.09.2014



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

Shri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, and Major


Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This Execution Application No. 101 of 2013 has been filed by

the applicant aggrieved against non-compliance of the judgment and

order dated 31.1.2013, passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 134 of

2011, by the respondents.

As it comes out that by the aforesaid judgment and order dated

31.1.2013 a direction was issued to the CDA(O), Pune, to release the

payment of Rs. 1,95,897/- with interest and post-retiral dues within

three months from the date certified copy of the order is issued, but

since the aforesaid judgment and order was not complied with, this

Execution Application as usual has seen the light of the day.

Learned counsel for the respondents, states that out of the sum

of Rs. 2,11,972/- which was withheld from the leave encashment

amount of Rs. 7,88,160/- due to the applicant and a sum of Rs.

1,95,897/- was adjusted from amongst the withheld amount and the

balance amount of Rs. 16,075/- was remitted to the account of the

applicant vide Cheque No. OF376467 dated 11.1.2012. Thereafter

after the aforesaid judgment and order of this Tribunal, out of the

withheld amount of Rs. 2,11,972/-, a sum of Rs. 1,95,897/- was

released in favour of the applicant, vide Cheque No. 378844 dated

13.6.2013. The balance amount of Rs. 16,075/- (Rs. 2,11,972/- minus

Rs.1,95,897) was already remitted to the account of the applicant vide

aforesaid cheque dated 11.1.2012. Therefore, according to the

respondents, no payment is withheld as on date.

To day the respondents have come up before this Court with a

crossed cheque of Rs. 15,672/- dated 25.9.2014 in the name of the

applicant towards interest part of the amount so withheld, as per

direction of this Tribunal in the aforesaid judgment and order dated

31.1.2013. The aforesaid cheque dated 25.9.2014 has been handed

over to learned counsel for the applicant by Shri R.S. Mishra, learned

counsel for the respondents, in Court. Learned counsel for the

respondents, therefore, submits that the aforesaid judgment and order

dated 31.1.2013 has been fully complied with.

We are satisfied with respect to the compliance of the aforesaid

judgment and order dated 31.1.2013 in its letter and spirit.

Accordingly, Execution Application No. 101 of 2013 stands

disposed of finally.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

Ex. A. No. 10 of 2014

Inre T. A. No. 1002 of 2010 with M.A. No. 799 of 2014

Shri Nath Shukla Applicant


Versus

Union of India & Others

Respondents


Notes of

the

Registry


25.09.2014



Present: Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the

applicant, Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the


Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the

respondents, informs this Court that certain papers have been sent

to the applicant which need to be filled in and signed by the

applicant before implementing the judgment and order dated

23.8.2013, passed by this Tribunal in T.A. No. 1002 of 2010.

Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant,

on the basis of instruction received by him from his client, admits

receipt of those papers and accordingly those papers were

returned to the respondents duly filled in and signed by the

applicant in the month of August, 2014.

Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the

respondents, prays for and is granted four weeks‟ time to

complete the necessary formalities and to implement the

aforesaid judgment and order dated 23.8.2013 in its letter and

spirit.

List on 5.11.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

Ex. A. No. 11 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1197 of 2014

Inre T. A. No. 297 of 2010

Havaldar Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.09.2014




Mrs. Veera Bahadur Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, and

Major Narender Singh Departmental Representative.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the judgment and

order dated 30.7.2013, passed by this Tribunal in T.A. No. 297 of 2010, has

been complied with.

Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, opposes

the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents and prays time to

file objection, in the form of an affidavit, mentioning therein that the

aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.7.2013, passed by this Tribunal, has

not yet been complied with. He may do so by the next date of listing.


The applicant is directed to remain present in Court on the next

date.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 527 of 2014

Raja Ram Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.09.2014



Present: Smt. Prashansha Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the

respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on this Misc.

Application No. 527 of 2014 for condoning the delay in filing the


We have carefully gone through the application as well as

the Original Application, filed by the applicant, Raja Ram, after

having aggrieved against his non-induction in the services of Indian

Army. In the Original Application the applicant has prayed that the

respondents be directed to issue appointment order in favour of the

applicant for the post of Soldier GD Entry.

After going through the Original Application we are of the

view that the case of the applicant does not fall within the parameter of

Section 2 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 since the applicant

has not yet been inducted into the military services.

Accordingly, this Original Application, which is yet to be

registered after condoning the delay in filing the Original Application,

as prayed by the applicant before this Court through Misc. Application

No. 527 of 2014, is dismissed at the admission stage as not

maintainable along with Original Application.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1237 of 2014

Mrs. Poonam Tomar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai on behalf

of respondents no. 1 to 4 is taken on record. When the case is next

listed, her name be shown as counsel for the said respondents.

Present: Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms.

Deepti Prasad Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents, and Major




As per office report there is delay of 13 years, 10 months and

10 days in filing the Original Application.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted six

weeks‟ time to file objection to the delay condonation application.

List on 11.11.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 581 of 2014

Hav. Awadhesh Kumar Pathak Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.09.2014



Present: Shri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms.

Deepti Prasad Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents, and Major


Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two

weeks‟ further time to comply the order dated 15.5.2014, passed by

this Court.

List on 12.11.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 602 of 2014 with M.A. No. 818 of 2014 & M.A. No. 1240 of 2014

Rajendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.09.2014



Present: Shri R. Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri

Dileep Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, and Major



9.10.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1063 of 2014

Naik Roopendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.09.2014




D.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, and Major Narender

Singh, Departmental Representative.


two weeks‟ further time to file objection to the delay condonation

application.

List on 03.11.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 109 of 2014

Mukesh Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.09.2014




Ishraq Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondents, and Major



three weeks‟ further time and no more to file counter affidavit.

List on 10.11.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 986 of 2010

Rajeer Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.09.2014



Present: Shri Bachchan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant,


Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four

weeks‟ further time to enable him to file amendment application.

List on 28.10.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1234 of 2014

(Inre: O.A. No. 126 of 2014)

Sunan Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.09.2014



Present: Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant,


Heard learned counsel for the applicant on Misc. Application

No. 1234 of 2014 for recall of the order of this Court dated 22.8.2014,

dismissing Misc. Application No. 692 of 2014 for non-prosecution.

The reasons shown in the affidavit filed along with Misc.

Application No. 1234 of 2014 for non-appearance on 22.8.2014 seem

to be genuine. Accordingly, the order dated 22.8.2014 is hereby

recalled and Misc. Application No. 692 of 2014 is restored to its

original number.

List for orders on 1.10.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

Ex. A. No. 65 of 2013

(Inre: T.A. No. 1276 of 2010)

Aditya Narain Sharma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.09.2014



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

Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Veera Bahadur

Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, and Major Narender

Singh, Departmental Representative.

Ms. Veera Bahadur Srivastava, on the basis of instruction

received, states that the judgment is under compliance and it has

almost been complied with.

Two weeks‟ time is, therefore, granted to the respondents to

bring on record, by means of an affidavit, that the judgment under

execution has been complied with.

List on 27.10.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 296 of 2013

Maj Prasant Gupta Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.09.2014



Present: Shri Rajiv Manglik and Shri Rakesh Johri, learned

counsel for the applicant, Shri D.S. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel,


Major Narender Singh, On the basis of instruction received by

him, states that the Medical Board has been conducted on 19.7.2014

and the applicant has been upgraded to Shape-I, but the original

Medical Board proceedings are awaited at the office of DGAFMS. He

also states that on receipt of the original Medical Board proceedings

the letter for granting Commission to the applicant will be issued.

On this, Shri Rajiv Manglik, learned counsel for the applicant,

states that the matter be listed after two months to enable the

respondents to reach to a final conclusion.

List on 9.12.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 297 of 2013

Pradeep Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.09.2014



Present: Shri V.P. Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Shri

Nishant Verma, and Major Narender Singh, Departmental

Representative.

Shri V.P. Pandey states that Shri Nishant Verma, learned

counsel for the applicant, has not come to this Court today. He,

therefore, prays that the case be adjourned.

As prayed, this case is adjourned for the day.

List on 11.12.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 105 of 2013

Barjinder Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.09.2014



Present: Shri R. Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri

Dileep Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, and Major


Major Narender Singh states that in view of direction of this

Court dated 5.9.2014 he tried to obtain instruction but he has not yet

received any instruction with respect to the outcome of the statutory

complaint of the applicant. He, therefore, prays for and is granted two

weeks‟ further time and no more to obtain instruction.

List on 5.11.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 571 of 2010

Bhanwar Pal Singh Applicant


Versus

Chief of Air Staff & Others Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


23.09.2014



Present: Col. Ashok Kumar (Retd.) & Shri Rohit Kumar, learned

counsel for the applicant, Shri B.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the

respondents, and Major Narender Singh, Departmental Representative.


In this case the applicant has challenged the SCM proceedings

on the ground that the provisions of Section 116(2) of the Army Act

has not been followed since in the aforesaid proceedings two officers,

viz. JCO as well as other officer needs to attend but they have not, as

such the entire SCM proceedings are vitiated.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 12.7.2002

when the SCM proceedings were initiated only one officer viz. Capt.

Subeer Seth was present but the second officer, who ought to have

been present in view of Section 116(2) of the Army Act was not

present, as such the entire SCM proceedings vitiated under the

provisions of Section 116(2) of the Army Act.

Let an affidavit by a responsible officer, who is conversant with

the facts of the case, be filed by the respondents specifically indicating

therein that on the aforesaid date who are two officers who were

present in the SCM proceedings on 12.7.2002.

List on 18.12.2014.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 572 of 2010 alongwith T.A. No. 571 of 2010

H.C.S. Rautela Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.09.2014



List on 18.12.2014 along with T.A.. No. 571 of 2010.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 633 of 2010

Upendra Singh Chauhan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.09.2014







ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 635 of 2010

Anil Joshi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.09.2014






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Umendra Prasad Rai Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.09.2014





Shri P.N. Chaturvedi states that he intends to file rejoinder

affidavit and prays ten days‟ further time to file the same.

Time prayed for is granted.

List on 5.11.2014.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1066 of 2014

Basant Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.09.2014



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

Dileep Singh, learned Standing Counsel and Major Narender Singh,


Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks

and no more time to file objection to the delay condonation

application, filed by the applicant.

List on 7.11.2014.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Santosh Kumar Tiwari Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.09.2014



Present: Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant, Shri Ishraq Farooqui, learned Standing Counsel and Major


Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted further two

weeks‟ time to file objection to the delay condonation application.

List on 11.11.2014.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 163 of 2013

Radhey Shyam Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.09.2014



Present: Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri

Ishraq Farooqui, learned Standing Counsel and Major Narender Singh,


A prayer has been made in this Original Application by the applicant

that the respondents be directed to implement the Government Instructions

and release the entitled pension with arrears from 1.1.2006 to the applicant

as Hony. Naib Subedar. This honorary rank is conferred to a Havildar, after

his retirement.

Shri Ishraq Farooqui, learned Standing Counsel, assisted by Major

Narender Singh, Departmental Representative, states that the matter is

pending before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court for reviewing the earlier order,

passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

Bunch of such cases are pending before this Court to be taken up

after final decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

With the consent of the parties, list this case along with the bunch of

cases, already pending disposal, after decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 296 of 2013

Maj Prasant Gupta Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.09.2014



Present: Shri Rakesh Johri, learned counsel for the applicant and

Major Narender Singh, Departmental Representative.

On the request made by Shri Rakesh Johri, list/put up this case

tomorrow, i.e. on 23.9.2014.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 92 of 2014

Sep Kishan Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.09.2014



Present: Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri

Ashutosh K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that rejoinder affidavit

is almost ready. He, therefore, prays two weeks‟ further time to file the

same.

As prayed, two weeks‟ further time is granted to learned

counsel for the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit.

List on 12.11.2014.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 65 of 2010

Ganesh Babu K.V. Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.09.2014



Present: Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri

Mukund Tewari, learned Standing Counsel and Major Narender Singh,



The point in issue raised by learned counsel for the applicant during

the course of hearing is that in the DCM proceedings Rule 22, 23 and 24 of

the Army Rules have not been complied with and the foundation of the

DCM proceedings are vitiated. He further submits that in case his argument

on the point of DCM proceedings not being conducted as per Rules 22, 23

and 24 of the Army Rules is accepted then he intends to press charge no. 1

for which he has been convicted, i.e. of desertion.

Shri Mukund Tewari, learned Standing Counsel, shall look into the

points to argue the case on the next date of listing.

List for further hearing on 26.11.2014.

Shri P.N. Chaturvedi states that as per direction of this Court the

applicant is present today in person before this Court. Let his attendance be

noted.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 80 of 2012

M. Thangarajan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.09.2014



Allowed.

. For judgment and order see our judgment and order of date

passed on separate sheets.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1324 of 2014

Ashish Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


16.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai

respondents no. 1 and 2 is taken on record.

Heard Ms. Ruby Chaudhary, learned counsel for applicant and

learned Standing Counsel with respect to admission of this

application.

Admittedly, the applicant appeared in some examination held

by the Army Recruitment Office, Meerut Cantt. In August, 2013 for

recruitment as SOLGD. It comes out from the application that some

dispute had arisen with respect to his pre-enrolment test and also with

respect to mode of selection and as per averments it comes out that he

has not been afforded opportunity to join his duties.

An objection has been raised by learned counsel for the

respondents with regard to maintainability of this application before

this Tribunal in view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Armed

Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 since the applicant has not yet been

inducted in the Army and is not an Army personnel.

An objection has also been raised by the Registry of this Court

that this petition is not maintainable before the Armed Forces

Tribunal, although learned counsel for the applicant has moved an

application to the effect that this application is no doubt not

maintainable before this Tribunal but for filing a writ petition before

the Hon‟ble High Court a rejection order is needed from this Court.

In view of above, since the applicant does not fall within the

parameter of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, this Original

Application (DY-No. 1324 of 2014 is not maintainable before the

Armed Forces Tribunal. It is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission

stage.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 782 of 2014

Alam Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


16.09.2014



Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing

Counsel on this Misc. Application No. 782 of 2014.


three weeks‟ time to file objection on the application for condoning

the delay in filing the Original Application, moved by the applicant.

List on 10.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 893 of 2014

Shital Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


16.09.2014




Counsel on this Misc. Application No. 893 of 2014.

The matter relates to rounding of disability pension.


three weeks‟ time to file objection on the application for condoning

the delay in filing the Original Application, moved by the applicant.

List on 10.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 06 of 2014

Sepoy Ramesh Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


16.09.2014



Shri Yash Pal Singh has filed power on behalf of the applicant and

states that this case has come up before this Court after a long travel from

Jharkhand High Court via Armed Forces Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, and

thereafter after on an order passed by the Hon‟ble Chairperson of this

Tribunal.

Shri Yash Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, states that

while he was going through the Writ Petition (S) No. 4841 of 2008, filed

before the Jharkhand High Court, and thereafter renumbered by the Registry

of this Court as Transferred Application No. 1324 of 2014, he realised that

some amendments in the petition are needed and, as such, he intends to file

an amendment application. He, therefore, prays for and is granted four

weeks‟ time to file amendment application.

On the next date learned counsel for the applicant is also to satisfy this

Court with respect to availing alternative remedy provided under the Armed

Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

List on 3.11.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 187 of 2014

Santhil Raju B Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


15.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai on behalf of

respondents no. 1 to 5 is taken on record. When the case is next listed, her

name be shown as counsel for the said respondents.

On call of the case a person claiming himself to be Santhil Raju B,

applicant, appeared and stated that his counsel Shri I.P. Yadav has not come

this Court today. He, therefore, prays for adjournment of the case.


Meanwhile, while going through the Original Application we found

that the applicant is resident of Tamil Nadu and he was dismissed from

service at Hyderabad. We are astonished as to how this Original Application

has been filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal, which has no

jurisdiction to entertain this Original Application.

List on 31.10.2014. The matter of jurisdiction will be taken into

consideration on that date.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 752 of 2014

Ravi Singh Thakur Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


15.09.2014



Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four weeks‟

further time to file objection to the delay condonation application.

List on 29.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 1188 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1189 of 2014

(Inre: M.A. No. 249 of 2014)

Sukhdev Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


15.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar on behalf of



Counsel.

Shri R. Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, while

moving Misc. Application No. 1189 of 2014 for leave to appeal before

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court relating to the judgment and order dated

24.7.2014, rendered by this Tribunal in Review Application No. 11 of

2014 (Inre: M.A. No. 249 of 2014), prays that the delay in filing the

application for leave to appeal be condoned and leave be granted.

As per office report, there is delay of 5 months and 4 days in

filing the application for leave to appeal.

The reasons shown for the delay in filing the application for

leave to appeal are not acceptable and also since the application has

been filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section

31(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Apart from it, learned

counsel for the applicant conceded that the application for leave to

appeal, filed beyond the period of limitation, is not maintainable.

Accordingly, Misc. Application No. 1188 of 2014 to condone

the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal is rejected.

Since the delay condonation application has already been

rejected, Misc. Application No. 1189 of 2014 for leave to appeal is,

accordingly, rejected.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 1190 of 2014

(Inre: M.A. No. 894 of 2014, M.A. No. 895 of 2014 & T.A. No. 100 of 2011)

Chandan Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


15.09.2014




applicant for recall of the order dated 14.8.2014, passed by this Bench,

dismissing Misc. Applications No. 894 of 2014 and 895 of 2014 for

non-prosecution.

The reason shown in paragraph no. 5 of the affidavit

accompanying Misc. Application No. 1190 of 2014 seems to be

genuine. Accordingly, the order dated 14.8.2014 is hereby recalled and

both Misc. Applications No. 894 of 2014 and 895 of 2014 are restored

to its original number.

List for orders before the Court concerned on 30.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 896 of 2014 with M.A. No. 900 of 2014

Shevendra Kumar Chauhan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


15.09.2014



On call of the case a person claiming himself to be Shevendra

Kumar Chauhan, applicant, appeared and stated that his counsel Shri

P.N. Chaturvedi has not come to this Court. He, therefore, prays for

adjournment. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 108 of 2014 with M.A. No. 547 of 2014

Bansh Raj Pal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


15.09.2014



Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted six weeks‟

further time to file counter affidavit.

List on 12.11.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 1052 of 2010

P.N. Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


15.09.2014



Learned counsel for the applicant is not prepared with the brief.




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 106 of 2011

Ramji Gautam Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


15.09.2014



Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is further granted, as a

matter of last opportunity, ten days and no more to file counter

affidavit to the amended Transferred Application.

List on 29.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 29 of 2010

Shiv Shankar Singh Sengar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


15.09.2014



Heard Shri Rakesh Johri, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri

R.S. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel and Major Narender Singh,


Through this Original Application the applicant is claiming

promotion from the post of Havildar to Naib Subedar since he was

qualified for the post of Naib Subedar on 2.12.2006 but he was not

promoted on the post of Naib Subedar upto 1.8.2007 when he became

disqualified for promotion just for the reason that he was overage on

the said date, i.e. on 1.8.2007.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that had

the applicant would have been promoted on the date when he was

qualified for promotion on the post of Naib Subedar, i.e. on 2.12.2006,

after implementing the existing policy on the said date, he would have

become Naib Subedar.

On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel , Shri R.S. Mishra,

submits that since there was no vacancy existing for the post of Naib

Subedar on 2.12.2006 and upto 1.8.2007, as such the applicant‟s

candidature could not be considered on the post of Naib Subedar.

The respondents are, therefore, directed to file an affidavit of

AOC (Records) within three weeks showing therein the vacancies of

Naib Subedar which existed from 2.12.2006 to 1.8.2007 and also to

indicate as to whether any person junior to the applicant was ever

promoted during the period from 2.12.2006 to 1.8.2007 on the post of

Naib Subedar or not.

List on 30.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 356 of 2012 with M.A. No. 487 of 2013 & M.A. No. 783 of 2013

Ranjodh Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


15.09.2014



Heard Shri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, at

some length.

This appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal

Act, 2007 (call the „Act‟ for short) has been preferred by the applicant

after being convicted in GCM.

A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Mukund

Tewari, learned Standing Counsel, on the admission of the present

appeal against GCM on the ground that the applicant has not availed

the alternative remedy provided under Section 164 of the Army Act

and since there being a specific bar under Section 21 of the Act, this

appeal directly under Section 15 of the Act cannot be entertained.

On the objection so raised by learned Standing Counsel,

learned counsel for the applicant stated that it is not required to avail

the alternative remedy provided under Section 21 of the Act before

filing appeal under Section 15 of the Act. He also cited a judgment

passed by the Full Bench of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal on

19.10.2010 in Original Application No. 471 of 2010 (Ex-Hav.

Parmeshwar Ram v. Union of India & others) emphasising upon this

Court that availing alternative remedy before coming to this Tribunal

is not absolute bar and appeal under Section 15 of the Act can be

entertained by this Court ignoring Section 21 of the Act. It has further

been argued by Shri Lalit Kumar that there is no need to avail the

remedy as provided under Section 21 of the Act vis-à-vis by a post-

confirmation petition under Section 164 of the Army Act.

Shri Mukund Tewari, learned Standing Counsel, prays that he

intend to prepare the brief on the subject to argue the matter

contradicting the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant that

the applicant has to avail the remedy as provided under Section 21 of

the Act in view of law laid down by the Hon‟ble apex Court with

respect to availing of alternative remedy and it cannot be said to be an

absolute bar.

Let learned Standing Counsel cite the case law on the subject

on the next date.

List on 18.11.2014.

Shri Lalit Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant, prays that

he be permitted to to correct the date, mentioned in the prayer clause,

as 16.8.2012 instead of 16.8.2011. He may correct the said

typographical error during the course of the day.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 749 of 2014

(Inre: Ex.A. No. 96 of 2013 & T.A. No. 899 of 2010)

Dev Lal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


12.09.2014



Case called out. It has been informed by the Bench Secretary of this

Court that the Bar Association of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow

Bench, has passed a resolution that the Advocates will abstain from judicial

work today in support of call of U.P. Bar Council. A resolution of the AFT

Bar Association has also been circulated in this regard.

Since the Advocates are abstaining judicial work today , the case is

adjourned for the day.

List on 15.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

Ex. A. No. 11 of 2014

(Inre: T.A. No. 297 of 2010)

Havaldar Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


12.09.2014










List on 19.9.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 455 of 2013

Jagat Pal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


12.09.2014










List on 16.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Smt. Munni Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


12.09.2014










List on 17.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 229 of 2013

Smt. Ropa Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


12.09.2014










List on 30.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 145 of 2013

Satendra Singh Pal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


12.09.2014










List on 11.11.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 13 of 2010

Mohan Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


12.09.2014










List on 12.11.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 820 of 2010

Anil Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


11.09.2014



Dismissed.

For judgment and order see our judgment and order of date passed

on separate sheets.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 1164 of 2014

Ganesh Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


11.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Devendra Kumar on behalf of

respondents no. 1 to 4 is taken on record. When the case is next listed, his




As per office report, there is delay of 8 years, 8 months and 8 days in


Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three

weeks‟ time to file objection. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within

two weeks thereafter.

List on 27.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 679 of 2014 with M.A. No. 670 of 2014

(Inre: M.A. No.1088 of 2013, 1089 of 2013 & T.A. No. 1053 of 2010)

Pitambar Datt Nainwal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


11.09.2014



Learned counsel for the applicant states that as per order dated

29.5.2014, passed by this Court, he has already deposited Rs. 1,000/- in the

Bar Association of this Tribunal, but could not obtain the receipt. He

submits that the receipt of Rs. 1,000/- will be produced before the Registry

of this Court before the next date of listing.




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 659 of 2013

Surendra Dutt Nautiyal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


11.09.2014



Learned Standing Counsel states that he has just received the

comments. He prays for and is granted two week‟s further time and no more

to file counter affidavit.

The matter relates to disability pension.

List on 1.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 140 of 2014

Vijay Shankar Tewari Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


11.09.2014



Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted, as a matter of

last opportunity, further three weeks‟ time and no more to file counter

affidavit.

List on 9.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1073 of 2014

Mehboob Khan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


11.09.2014



Inspite of the order dated 4.9.2014, learned counsel for the applicant

has not cared to make good the deficiency reported by the Registry of this

Court on 21.7.2014. We had afforded opportunities to learned counsel for

the applicant on 24.7.2014, 14.8.2014 and 4.9.2014 to make good the

deficiency even on his own request to make good the deficiency but even

then the orders of this Court was not complied with. It seems that neither

the applicant nor his counsel is interested in pursuing the case.

Accordingly, this Original Application (DY-No. 1073 of 2014) is

dismissed.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1275 of 2014

Ajay Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


11.09.2014





List has been revised. No one appears for the applicant.

The Registry of this Court had pointed out the defects vide its report

dated 10.9.2014 but the defects have not yet been removed by learned

counsel for the applicant. It seems that learned counsel for the applicant is

not interested in pursuing the remedy.


dismissed for non-prosecution.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1285 of 2014

Mahendra Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


11.09.2014






On call of the case Shri R. Chandra, Advocate, states that Shri H.S.

Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, has not come to this Court and

prays for adjournment. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.

List on 27.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 127 of 2009 with M.A. No. 1166 of 2014

Kumar R Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


11.09.2014



Heard Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

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

respondents.

This Writ Petition No. 6651 (S/S) OF 1999 has come on transfer

from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow,

and re-numbered as Transferred Application No. 127 of 2009.

By this writ petition the petitioner, who was Sergeant in the Air

Force, has challenged the order dated 12.10.1998 (Annexure No. „I‟ to the

writ petition) and prays that the said order dated 12.10.1998 be quashed.

It has come out from the record that the petitioner was discharged

from service with effect from 21.12.1999.

In this case counter, rejoinder, supplementary counter and

supplementary rejoinder affidavit have also been exchanged.

We have gone through the record of the case. It reveals that after

filing of the writ petition before the Hon‟ble High Court, he obtained a stay

order from the High Court on 23.12.1999 with respect to his discharge from

service, but, subsequently, the aforesaid stay order was vacated on 6.4.2004.

It comes out from the record that after vacation of the interim order

the aforementioned impugned order dated 12.10.1998 was cancelled and the

order dated 1.6.2004 was passed by the respondents discharging the

applicant from service. This order has not been challenged by the applicant

yet, although in the amendment application, moved by the applicant and

allowed by this Court, the applicant only prayed for amendments in the

nature that the respondents be directed to count the service of the petitioner

rendered by him upto 21.6.2004 treating him promoted to the rank of JWO

with effect from the date junior to the petitioner has been promoted on the

said post with all consequential benefits of service and to revise the pension

of the petitioner treating him in service upto 21.6.2004.

In view of above, it comes out that the petitioner did not challenge

the discharge order dated 1.6.2004, passed after withdrawing the order dated

12.10.1998, which is under challenge till date. The said order dated

12.10.1998, after its withdrawal, is no more in existence and there is no

prayer challenging the order dated 1.6.2004, thus this petition has now

become infructuous.

Accordingly, this Transferred Application No. 127 of 2009 is

dismissed as infructuous, without any order as to costs.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 30 of 2010

Ata Ullah Khan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


11.09.2014



This Transferred Application has not yet been admitted.

List this Transferred Application for „admission‟ and not for

„hearing‟ on 30.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 1150 of 2014

Rajesh Kumar Rao Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


10.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Ms. Veera Bahadur Srivastava on

behalf of respondents no. 1 to 5 is taken on record. When the case is next

listed, her name be shown as counsel for the said respondents.



As per office report, there is delay of 7 months and 1 day in filing the


Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three

weeks‟ time to file objection.

List on 27.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1116 of 2014 with Ex. A. No. 104 of 2013

Mithilesh Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


10.09.2014



Heard Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, and Ms.

Veera Bahadur Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel.

Learned Standing Counsel points out that in the details of remedies

exhausted by the applicant, as mentioned in the Original Application, the

date 6.8.2012 has been wrongly mentioned. According to her, it ought to

have been 6.3.2010. Learned counsel for the applicant, realising the mistake,

sought permission to correct the date as 6.3.2010. As prayed, learned

counsel for the applicant is permitted to do so during the course of the day.

As per office report there is delay of 1 year, 8 months and 29 days in


Learned counsel for the applicant argues that there is no delay in

filing the original application since the order dated 3.5.2012 was not served

on the applicant and it only came to the notice of the applicant on 5.2.2014

when the respondents filed counter affidavit in Execution Application No.

104 of 2013. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the

order dated 3.5.2012 was served on the applicant well in time.

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks‟ time

to file objection indicating therein when the order dated 3.5.2012 rejecting

the petition of the applicant was served upon the applicant. The respondents

are also directed to produce the record about service of the order dated

3.5.2012 on the applicant on the next date.

List on 7.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 1151 of 2014 with DY-No. 1305 of 2014

Abhilash Kumar & Others

Applicants

By Legal Practitioner for Applicants

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


10.09.2014



This Misc. Application No. 1151 of 2014 has been filed for

recall of the order dated 26.8.2014 dismissing DY-No. 1305 of 2014

for non-prosecution.

The reasons shown in the affidavit, filed along with the

application, seem to be genuine. Accordingly, the order dated

26.8.2014 is hereby recalled.

DY-No. 1305 of 2014.


Application. The Original Application has been filed by the applicant

praying therein that the selection proceedings dated 13.3.2012 relating

the selection of the applicants for appointment in the Army, whereby

they were held to be ineligible with respect to selection on the post, be

quashed.

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing

Counsel that the case of the applicants do not fall within the parameter

of Section 2 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

Looking to the objection raised by the respondents and the fact

that the applicants have not yet been inducted in the role of the Army

this case does not fall within the parameter of Section 2 of the Act.


dismissed at the admission stage itself.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 1152 of 2014

(Inre: O.A. No. 288 of 2012)

Shib Bahadur Gurung Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


10.09.2014



This Misc. Application No. 1152 of 2014 has been filed for recall of

the order dated 22.8.2014 dismissing the Original Application No. 288 of

2012 for non-prosecution.

The reasons shown in the affidavit filed along with the recall

application seem to be genuine. Accordingly, the order dated 22.8.2014 is

hereby recalled. The Original Application is restores to its original number.

List for orders before the Court concerned on 1.10.2014.

When the case is next listed, the name of Shri V.K. Pandey be shown

as counsel for the applicant.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 110 of 2014

Pratap Singh Applicant

In Person

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


10.09.2014



It comes out from the record that this Original Application has

already been admitted. The applicant is aged about 84 years old and through

this Original Application he prays that the respondents be directed to

sanction him Reservist Pension from 16.2.1964. However, inspite of time

being granted no counter affidavit has been filed as yet.

Learned Standing Counsel again prays for and is granted two weeks‟

time and no more to file counter affidavit. It is made clear that if no counter

affidavit is filed by the next date, the Original Application will be disposed

of finally.

List on 30.9.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 330 of 2014

Prabhu Lal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


10.09.2014



Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks‟

further time to file objection to the delay condonation application after

serving a copy of the same on learned counsel for the applicant, who may

file rejoinder affidavit, if any within one week thereafter.

List on 1.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 190 of 2013

Jai Prakash Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


10.09.2014



Shri R.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant, prays for and is

granted three weeks‟ time to file rejoinder affidavit.

List on 18.11.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 255 of 2013 with M.A. No. 526 of 2014 & M.A. No. 789 of 2014

Shailendra Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


10.09.2014



Shri R. Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, prays for and is

granted two weeks‟ time to file amended copy of the Original Application,

as ordered by this Court on 20.8.2014.

List on 17.11.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 267 of 2013

Kitab Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


10.09.2014



Shri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, prays for and is

granted three weeks‟ time to file rejoinder affidavit.

List on 8.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 50 of 2013 with M.A. No. 638 of 2014

G.C. Agarwal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


10.09.2014



As usual a request has been made by Major Narender Singh,

Departmental Representative, that further time be granted to file a detailed

counter affidavit, as directed by this Court on 28.4.2014 Thereafter on

29.5.2014 and 22.8.2014 the respondents sought time to file counter

affidavit. Today again the same request has been made. However, as a

measure of last opportunity, a week‟s further time is granted to the

respondents to file counter affidavit. It is made clear that no further time will

be granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit and if no counter

affidavit is filed by the next date this Court will consider for staying the

recovery process against the applicant made by the respondents

List on 19.9.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 135 of 2010

Smt. Jyoti Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


10.09.2014



On call of the case Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate, appeared and

stated that Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, has not

come to this Court today since one of his relatives is not well. He prays that

the case be adjourned. Accordingly, this case is adjourned for the day.




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 1148 of 2014

Leelavati Soni Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


09.09.2014





Heard Shri O.P. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, and

Shri Prakhar Kankan, learned counsel for the respondents.

This Misc. Application No.1148 of 2014 for condoning the delay in

filing the Original Application praying for appointment of the applicant

under the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules in the Air Force.

As it comes out, the husband of the applicant, Late Raj Kumar, who

was employed in the Indian Air Force, died on 6.3.2005 while in service. At

that time Late Raj Kumar was posted at Kolkata. The applicant, being his

wife, has applied for appointment in the Air Force under the provisions of

the Dying in Harness Rules. Her candidature was considered and rejected by

a detailed order dated 5.8.2009 and thereafter again on 28.1.2010, which is

under challenge. It is also a detailed order whereby it has been indicated that

the candidature of the applicant was considered and since she was given

points 61, which is much less than the points allotted to other candidates, her

candidature, considered along with other candidates, who applied for

appointments under Dying in Harness Rules for appointment under 5%

quota reserved for such candidates, was rejected. While going through the

order dated 28.1.2010, annexed as Annexure „1‟ to the Original Application,

it revealed that the respondents has considered the claim of the applicant

keeping in view the policy laid down by the Hon‟ble apex Court in the case

of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & others reported in JT

1994(3) SC 525 wherein the Hon‟ble apex Court has observed to the extent

that the principle for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules cannot be

made as a matter of right. Nevertheless, the case of the applicant was

considered and was rejected by the respondents for appointment under the

aforesaid Rules. Apart from it, as per office report, this Original Application

has been filed delayed by 4 years and 28 days.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are

of the view that Misc. Application No. 1148 of 2014, praying for condoning

the delay in filing the Original Application, deserves to be rejected. It is,

accordingly, rejected.

Since the application for condoning the delay in filing the Original

Application has been rejected, the Original Application stands dismissed.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 723 of 2014

(Inre: O.A. No. 131 of 2014)

Achche Lal Gupta Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


09.09.2014



Vakalatnama filed by Shri Aniruddh Prasad on behalf of respondent

no. 7 is taken on record. When the case is next listed, his name be shown as

counsel for the said respondent.

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

D.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

The respondents are directed to obtain instruction within three weeks

especially to the effect as to whether the son of the applicant, viz. Late Cpl.

Amit Kumar Gupta, who was working in the Air Force, had, at the time of

entering into the service, recorded whose name as his NOK in the service

record. The respondents will also produce, on the said date, the service

record of the applicant. The respondents will also indicate as to whether, at

any point of time, the name of the wife of Late Cpl. Amit Kumar Gupra, viz.

Soni Gupta, was ever recorded in the service record of the Air Force.

List on 1.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 883 of 2014

Mahesh Chand Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


09.09.2014



Shri Veer Raghav Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, prays

for and is granted three weeks‟ time to comply the order dated 31.7.2014,

passed by this Court.

List on 1.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 1015 of 2014

Tuphan Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


09.09.2014



This Misc. Application No. 1015 of 2014 has been filed for condoning

the delay in filing the Original Application, filed by the applicant against the

order passed by the respondents in the Court Martial proceedings, which,

after pre-confirmation under Section 161(1) of the Air Force Act, 1950, was

rejected on 7.11.2013 and even petition under Section 161(2) of the said Act

dated 28.11.2013, preferred by the applicant, was rejected by the Chief of

the Air Staff and was communicated to the applicant on 15.1.2014.

Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the

applicant preferred this Original Application on 4.8.2014, which is, as per

office report, delayed by 24 days.

The reasons shown in the affidavit in support with the delay

condonation application seem to be genuine and objection which has been

filed by the respondents in Court does not have any serious objection to

negate the reason given in the condonation of delay application and

affidavit. Accordingly, the delay of 24 days in filing the Original

Application is hereby condoned. The Original Application be registered.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 183 of 2014

Tuphan Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


09.09.2014



Heard Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri

Dileep Singh, learned Standing Counsel, on this Original Application,

preferred against the DCM proceedings wherein he has been granted

punishment under Section 38(1) of the Air Force Act for six months‟ R.I.

plus dismissal from service, which was, later on, converted into three

months‟ R.I. on the pre-confirmation petition filed by the applicant.

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are three

folded, viz. (1) the punishment is too harsh, disproportionate to the charges

levelled against the applicant; (2) the norms and principles laid down under

the Rules had not been followed; and (3) the applicant cannot be tried under

Section 38(1) of the Air Force Act.

Admit.

Counter affidavit may be filed by the respondents within six weeks.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within three weeks thereafter.

List on 25.11.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 739 of 2014

Smt. Munni Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


09.09.2014



Shri Veer Raghav Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, prays

that he be granted two days‟ time to file delay condonation application in the

Registry of this Court after serving copy of the same on learned counsel for

the respondents. Time prayed for is granted.

The respondents may file objection, if any, within three weeks

thereafter.

List on 7.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Manoj Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


09.09.2014



Shri R. Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, states that he

intends to file rejoinder affidavit. He prays for and is granted three weeks‟

time to file to file the same.

List on 30.9.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 09 of 2010

Surya Mani Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


09.09.2014



The matter relates to District Court Martial. It is necessary that the

record pertaining to the applicant be produced before this Court. The

respondents are, therefore, directed to produce the record on the next date.




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 1093 of 2010

Smt. Prasandi Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


09.09.2014



List has been revised. Learned counsel for the applicant is not

present. One Satveer Singh claiming himself to be the son of the applicant

appeared and states that since Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the

applicant, has not come to this Court today, the case be adjourned.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 176 of 2014

Vijay Bahadur Chauhan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


08.09.2014






The matter relates to disability pension.


Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted six weeks‟ time

to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within three

weeks thereafter.

List on 21.11.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 181 of 2014

Kitabuddin Ansari Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


08.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai on behalf of

respondents no. 1 to 3 is taken on record. When the case is listed next, her


Heard Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted six

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

within three weeks thereafter.

List on 19.11.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 640 of 2014

Hemant Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


08.09.2014



On call of the case Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of

Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, appeared and stated

that Shri P.N. Chaturvedi has not come to this Court since he is ill. He prays

for adjournment of the case. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel

prays for and is granted further three weeks‟ time and no more to file

objection.

List on 10.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 597 of 2014

Chandra Pratap Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


08.09.2014



On call of the case Shri R. Chandra, Advocate, appeared and stated

that Shri Yashpal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, has not come to

this Court today since he is busy in High Court. On the contrary learned

Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks‟ further time to file

objection to the delay condonation application.

List on 8.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 358 of 2012

AK Vijayan

Applicant


Versus

Chief of Army Staff & Others

Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


08.09.2014



Heard Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri

D.S. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel, and Major Narender Singh,

Departmental Representative, on this Original Application.

This Original Application has been preferred by the applicant

praying therein that the order dated 21.6.2007 passed by the Adm.

Officer, MH Dagshai, relating to movement order of the applicant and

the order dated 18.11.2001 rejecting the statutory complaint of the

applicant, contained in Annexure A-1, be quashed.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that

the impugned order, which is under challenge, has been passed at MH

Dagashai on 21.6.2007 and the grievance of the applicant against the

said order does not lie within the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces

Tribunal, Lucknow Bench. It has further been submitted that the

applicant is resident of the State of Kerala and impugned order has

been passed by MH Dagashai, as such, in any case, this Original

Application does not lie within the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces

Tribunal, Lucknow Bench.

This Court is also of the view that this O.A. does not lie within

the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal.

Accordingly, this Original Application No. 358 of 2012 is

dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. The Applicant may approach

any other Bench of this Tribunal having jurisdiction.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 40 of 2014 with M.A. No 722 of 2014

Lt Col Rajesh Kumar Shukla, SM Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


08.09.2014



Heard Shri R. Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri B.P.S.

Chauhan, learned Standing Counsel, and Major Narender Singh,


By means of this Original Application the applicant has prayed that

ACRs from 2005 to 2011 be quashed and the respondents be directed to

consider the applicant for promotion to the rank of Colonel without ACRs

from 2005 to 2011 and grant him promotion to the rank of Colonel with

effect from 2011 along with all consequential benefits including seniority,

arrears of salary etc.

It comes out from the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant

that the applicant apprehends that due to DV Ban imposed on him his ACRs

from 2005 to 2011 are likely to have been adversely impacted due to which

he may not be found fit for promotion.

On a query being made by this Court, Major Narender Singh,

Departmental Representative, informed this Court on 3.9.2014 that the DV

Ban imposed on the officer was lifted on 14.9.2005 and the DV Ban had no

effect on the ACRs of the applicant after lifting of the ban in 2005.

Today, Major Narender Singh, on the basis of Fax message sent by

MS Legal Cell dated 4.9.2014, says that after lifting of DV Ban, there is no

negative input or effect on CR since CR for particular period is based on

performance for particular reporting period. Even during pendency of

disciplinary case, CR is initiated as per Para 34 of AO 45/2001/MS, after

due sanction of SRO and to ACR is also examined for objectivity and to

ensure that it has no reference to ongoing disciplinary case. This Fax

message dated 4.9.2014 is made part of this record.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this

Original Application has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed at the

admission stage itself.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 9 of 2014

Shashi Kant Jha Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


08.09.2014






This case has come to this Tribunal after being transferred from the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Allahabad, and has been listed as

Transferred Application No. 9 of 2014.

The Bench copy is not available. Learned counsel for the applicant

prays for and is granted a month‟s time to file Bench copy for assistance of

the Court.

List on 10.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 15 of 2014

Major Kunwar Ambreshwar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


08.09.2014



List has been revised.

This petition has come on transfer from the High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow,

Office report dated 4..8.2014 indicates that notice issued to the

applicant has been received by him. Further, the office report dated 5.9.2014

indicates that the applicant presented himself before the Registry on

5.9.2014. He or his counsel, however, failed to appear before this Court

today.

Accordingly, this petition (Transferred Application No. 15 of 2014)

is dismissed for non-prosecution.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 219 of 2013

Ajay Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


08.09.2014



After hearing Shri R. Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, at

some length, it transpires that as per direction given earlier by this Court on

27.5.2014 the respondents failed to produce the original show-cause notice

bearing signature of the applicant with respect to service of the same on the

applicant.

Major Narender Singh, Departmental Representative, states that the

Unit, under whose custody the record is, has gone to Congo. He, therefore,

prays that the matter be taken up after three months to enable the

respondents to produce the original show-cause notice showing service upon

the applicant.

As prayed, list on 8.1.2015. On the said date original show-cause

notice be produced before this Court by the respondents bearing signature of

the applicant.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 28 of 2009

Pramod Bhosle Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


08.09.2014




Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, appeared and states

that Shri P.N. Chaturvedi is not well and has not come to this Court today.

Shri Pandey prays for adjournment of the case. As prayed, the case is


List on 9.1.2015.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 1108 of 2014

Prashanth Kumar PG Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


05.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava on

behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 is taken on record. When the case is next


Heard Shri Yash Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned

Standing Counsel and Major Narender Singh, Departmental Representative.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents

regarding maintainability of this Original Application before this Court on

the ground that neither the applicant is resident of nor is posted within the

jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted by the respondents that the

applicant is residing within the State of Kerala and is posted at Ambala,

under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench.

Learned counsel for the applicant wants time to submit on the above

point.




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 06 of 2014

Sepoy Ramesh Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


05.09.2014



List this case again on 16.9.2014 showing the name of Shri Yash

Pal Singh as learned counsel for the applicant.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M. A. No. 83 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1122 of 2014 & M.A. No. 1123 of 2014

(Inre: O.A. No. 243 of 2011)

Sgt Kesho Dubey Applicant


Versus

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, Chief of Air Staff & Others Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


05.09.2014



Heard Shri T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, as well

as Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, on

Misc. applications No. 1123, 1122 and 1144 of 2014 for getting the

judgment and order dated 13.9.2013, passed by this Tribunal in O.A.

No. 243 of 2011, executed.

Although the aforesaid two Misc. Applications No. 1122 and

1123 of 2014 have been moved by the respondents claiming therein

that the aforesaid judgment and order has been complied with in toto

but learned counsel for the applicant, through the supplementary

affidavit and on the aforesaid two applications, moved by the

respondents, submitted that the aforementioned judgment and order

has not been implemented as yet.


two weeks‟ time to file objection on Misc. Application No. 1144 of

2014.

It has been submitted by Shri T.N. Tiwari that the respondents

are adamant to harass the applicant in every manner and abused him

badly, what to say implementation of the aforesaid judgment and order

and there is every likelihood that the applicant might be more harassed

in future in one manner or the other. It has also been submitted by Shri

Tiwari that the applicant has not been paid CILQ and other dues and

the authorities of CILQ are against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to place on record

the rules which entitles the applicant for payment of CILQ and other

financial benefits arising thereto which emerges out from the aforesaid

judgment and order under execution.


The respondents are also directed to produce the documents on

the next date showing therein that, as directed in the aforesaid

judgment and order under execution, the consequential benefits have

been provided to the applicant .



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 218 of 2010

Sanjay Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


05.09.2014



The pleadings are complete in this case.

List for hearing on 9.12.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 78 of 2011

Raj Singh Sharawat Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


05.09.2014




stated that Shri P.N. Chaturvedi has not come to this Court today. He,

therefore, prays for adjournment of the case. Accordingly, the case is





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 217 of 2013

Manvendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


05.09.2014



Learned Standing Counsel states that counter affidavit is ready

and will be filed before the Registry during the course of day after

service a copy of the same on learned counsel for the applicant. If

copy of the counter affidavit is served on learned counsel for the

applicant, the applicant may file rejoinder affidavit, if any, within

three weeks.

List on 29.10.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1219 of 2014

N.K. Singh & another Applicants

By Legal Practitioner for Applicants

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


05.09.2014



List has been revised. No one appears for the applicant. This

Original Application bearing DY-No. 1219 of 2014 is dismissed for

non-prosecution.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 224 of 2012

Smt. Anju Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


05.09.2014



After hearing at some length Shri A.S.V. Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant, states that he intends to amend the Original Application and prays for

and is granted three weeks‟ time to file amendment application. The record brought

by the respondents today shall be produced before this Court on the next date.

List on 30.9.2014.

At the time of hearing of this Original Application, the applicant herself

also appeared in person and narrated her pitiable conditions under which she is

surviving with her son.

The responsibility has been taken by Major Narender Singh for considering

her request for appointment under dying in harness rules and offering her

appointment at Delhi seems to be harsh.

This Court, therefore, expects from the respondents that the respondents

will again consider the case of the applicant as per her qualification to provide her a

suitable and dignified job in District Meerut or nearby any district by the next date

of listing of this case.

Let a copy of this order be provided to Major Narender Singh today free of

cost.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 105 of 2013

Barjinder Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


05.09.2014



After hearing Shri R. Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant,

and Major Narender Singh, Departmental Representative, it comes out

that there is nothing on record to indicate that the statutory complaint

under Section 26 of the Army Act, 1950 and paragraph 364 of the

Regulation for the Army 1987 (Vol. I), preferred by the applicant

before the authorities concerned, as per information received by Major

Narender Singh, is pending with 16 (B) DSC Platoon, COD, Agra.

Major Narender Singh is directed to let this Court know

whether the aforesaid statutory complaint has been disposed of or not.

If disposed of, the entire process and outcome of the said statutory

complaint be placed before this Court on the next date.

List on 23.9.2014.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 120 of 2009

BG Gowda Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


05.09.2014



On call of the case Shri R. Chaubey, Advocate, appeared and

stated that Shri R.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, is not

well and has not come to this Court today. He, therefore, prays for

adjournment of the case.

On 27.5.2014 this Court ordered that no further adjournment

will be granted in this case.

However, in any case, since Shri Agarwal is not well, we are

adjourning this case for the day.

List on 6.1.2015.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T. A. No. 820 of 2010

Anil Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


05.09.2014



Heard Shri C.P.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant,

and Major Narender Singh, Departmental Representative, at length.

Judgment reserved.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

EX-A. No. 32 of 2014

(Inre O.A. No. 201 of 2010)

Lal Mohan Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.09.2014



Notice of this Execution Application has been accepted by Major

Narender Singh, Departmental Representative, to obtain instruction as

to under what circumstances the judgment and order dated 17.7.2013,

passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 201 of 2010, has not yet been

implemented and, if so, the reason thereof. He is also directed to

inform this Court, on the next date of listing, as to where the file for

execution of the aforesaid judgment and order is pending and before

which authority.

Major Narender Singh prays for and is granted three weeks‟

time to obtain instruction.

List on 9.10.2014.



PG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 331 of 2014

( With M.A. No 584 of 2014 & M.A. No 1094 of 2014)

Jagdidh Chandra Patidar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.09.2014



List has been revised. Shri Rohit Kumar, Advocate, appeared and

stated that R. Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, is out of

station. Shri Rohit Kumar, therefore, prays for adjournment of the

case. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.

List on 17.10.2014.



PG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 200 of 2010

Smt. Uma Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.09.2014



List has been revised. Shri P.K. Shukla, Advocate, appeared and

stated that Shri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, is out

of station and could not come to this Court. Shri Shukla prays for

adjournment of the case. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the

day.




PG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 370 of 2011

Gaurav Malik Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.09.2014



On call of the case a person claiming himself to be Gaurav Malik,

applicant, appeared and states that his counsel, Shri D.S. Kauntae,

could not come to this Court today since he is ill. He, therefore, prays

for adjournment of the case. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the

day.




PG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 458 of 2012

Prem Narain Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.09.2014



On call of the case Shri Vinay Pandey holding brief of Shri P.N.

Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, appeared and prays that

he be granted further four weeks‟ time to file rejoinder affidavit.

Earlier time for filing rejoinder affidavit was granted twice but the

same has not been filed.

However, as a matter of last opportunity, four weeks‟ time is

granted to file rejoinder affidavit.

As prayed, list on 8.12.2014. It is expected that rejoinder

affidavit will be filed by the said date.



PG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 273 of 2013 with M.A. No 849 of 2014

Lt Col Ray Gautam Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.09.2014



Major Narender Singh, Departmental Representative, prays for

and is granted, as a matter of last opportunity, three weeks‟ time to file

objection to the amendment application. It is hereby made clear that

no further time will be granted for the same.

List on 7.10.2014.



PG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 63 of 2013

with M.A. No. 1092 of 2014 & M.A. No. 1093 of 2014

Girish Chandra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.09.2014




This application is allowed. Let rejoinder affidavit be taken on

record.


This is an application for amendment in the Transferred

Application on the prayer clause without mentioning the reason and

grounds for amendment. Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

the applicant, prays that this application be dismissed as not pressed

with liberty to file afresh. Accordingly, Misc. Application No. 1092 of

2013 is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file afresh.

List on 28.10.2014.



PG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1073 of 2014

Mehboob Khan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.09.2014



Inspite of time being granted to Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned

counsel for the applicant, on the objections raised by the Registry of

this Court on 21.7.2014, the objections have not yet been removed. It

seems that the applicant is not interested in pursuing the remedy.

However, as a matter of last opportunity, a week‟s further time

is granted to make good the deficiency, as indicated by the Registry.

List on 11.9.2014.



PG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

EX.-A. No. 26 of 2014

(Inre O.A. No. 119 of 2012)

Ravindra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.09.2014



Heard Shri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and

Major General Sanjiv Verma, ADG PS, Army HQ, as well as Col.

HKS Badh, Col. Rajeev Sharma, both officials of Addl Dte Gen of

Personal Services, Army HQ, Major Narender Singh, Departmental

Representative, and Shri D.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, in

this Execution Application No. 26 of 2014, moved by the applicant for

implementation of the judgment and order dated 24.1.2013, passed by

this Tribunal in O.A. No. 119 of 2012.

While allowing the aforementioned Original Application,

respondents no. 2 and 3 were directed to pursue the case with

PCDA(P) to issue revised PPO and get release of disability pension

within two months from the day copy of the order is issued.

In this Execution Application notices were received by Shri

D.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of the respondents

but since inspite of time granted to the respondents the aforesaid

judgment and the order was not implemented and this Court,

ultimately had no other option but to direct ADGPS, Army

Headquarters, New Delhi, on 19.8.2014, to appear in person before

this Court today.

Today, the aforementioned officers appeared in person before

this Court and assured that revised PPO granting disability element to

the applicant will be issued to the applicant within a week.

Further Major General Verma as well as other officers present

in Court, submitted that they find some difficulty in implementation of

the judgments and orders of this Tribunal for the reason that for

implementation of the judgments and orders it passes through various

channels and, therefore, causes delay and for this reason Execution

Applications are being filed for implementation of the judgments and

orders, passed by this Tribunal.

We hereby recommend to Major General Verma to look into

the matter and to see that a special cell is established to deal with the

judgments and orders of this Tribunal quickly to facilitate early

implementation of the orders so that this Tribunal is not burdened with

high number of Execution Cases.

List this case on 7.10.2014. It is expected that by that time

revised PPO granting disability element to the applicant will be issued

to the applicant.

So far as the observation made in the paragraph of the order

dated 19.8.2014 asking ADGPS to show cause as to why heavy cost

be not imposed against him to be deducted from his salary and also as

to why disciplinary proceedings be not got initiated against him for not

complying the aforementioned judgment and order dated 24.1.2013

deliberately and intentionally is hereby recalled.



PG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 221 of 2010

Balwant Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.09.2014




Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, appeared and

prays for adjournment of the case since Shri Chaturvedi has not come

to this Court today. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.




PG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 316 of 2011

Narendra Singh Rawat Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Anand Kumar Singh on behalf

of respondents no. 1 to 10 is taken on record. When the case is next

listed, his name be shown as counsel for the respondents.

On call of the case one person claiming himself to be Narendra

Singh Rawat, applicant, appeared and stated that his counsel, Shri

D.S. Kauntae has not come to this Court today. He, therefore, prays

for adjournment of the case. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the

day.




PG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 198 of 2013 with O.A. No. 196 of 2013

Vishnu Prasad Upadhiya Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


04.09.2014




stated that Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, has

not come to this Tribunal today. Shri Pandey, therefore, prays for

adjournment of the case.

This case pertains to disability pension of the applicant,

whereas O.A. No. 196 of 2013 pertains to discharge from service of

the applicant.

O.A. No. 196 of 2013 is pending before the Bench consisting of

Hon. V.K. Dixit, Member (J) and Hon. Lt. Gen. Gyan Bhushan,

Member (A).

Therefore, O.A. No. 198 of 2013 be listed along with O.A. No.

196 of 2013 before Court No. 2 on the date already fixed in O.A. No.

196 of 2013.



PG

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-NO. 1117 of 2014

Sultan Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.09.2014



Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, prays that

he be granted three weeks‟ further time to file an affidavit stating

therein that the applicant has authorised his son, Narendra, to swear

affidavit and to do pairvi in this case, on his behalf.

Time prayed for is granted. Let the affidavit, as desired, be filed

before the date fixed.

List on 29.09.2014.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 697 of 2014

Heera Ballabh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.09.2014



Misc. Application No. 697 of 2014

This is an application moved by the applicant for condonation of

delay in filing the Original Application, wherein claim has been made

for grant of disability pension due towards the applicant.

As per office report dated 29.05.2014, there is delay of 16 years,

09 months and 23 days in filing the Original application.

It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the delay

condonation application that the applicant was discharged in the year

1997 on medical ground; soon thereafter he preferred claim for

disability pension; subsequently, he preferred an appeal, which took

considerable time in its disposal and thereafter, the applicant preferred

representation as per Annexure- 6, which was decided in the year

2005. Thereafter, he further represented in the year 2010, which is still

pending consideration.

The reasons shown for delay in filing the Original Application

seem to be genuine, and inspite of time having been granted to the

respondents on several occasions, no objection has been filed against

the delay condonation application. Matter pertains to claim for grant of

disability pension, as such the delay in filing the Original Application

deserves to be condoned.

Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed and

the delay in filing the Original Application is condoned.

The office is directed to register the Original Application.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O. A. No. 178 of 2014

Heera Ballabh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.09.2014



Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned

standing counsel on the Original Application, which pertains to the

claim for grant of disability pension.

Admit.

Let the counter affidavit be filed within six weeks and the

rejoinder affidavit within three weeks thereafter.

List on 13.11.2014.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

EX-A. No. 66 of 2012

(Inre O.A. No. 341 of 2011)

Subhash Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.09.2014



List this case along with the bunch of cases dealing with

controversy in relation to Honorary Naib Subedars.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

EX-A. No. 55 of 2013

(Inre O.A. No. 254 of 2010)

Syed Mohd Addel Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.09.2014



In this execution application from the order dated 13.08.2014

passed by us, it comes out that even after issuance of the PPO

directing the Treasury officer, Lucknow to make payment of disability

pension to the applicant, no heed was paid by him, as such the

Treasury Officer, Lucknow was summoned with a rider that in case

payment was made to the applicant, he need not appear.

The Treasury Officer vide his letter dated 30.08.2014, on record,

has informed that the applicant has been paid in pursuance of the PPO

on 23.08.2014. It has also been specified that the payment could not be

made earlier due to non-appearance of the applicant before him for

physical verification.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that in view of the above,

the instant execution application stands rendered infructuous.

Consequently, the execution application is dismissed as

infructuous.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 661 of 2013

Vikas Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.09.2014



List has been revised. No one appears for the applicant; neither

there is any request to adjourn/pass over the case for the day.

Accordingly, M.A. No.661 of 2013, Vikas Pandey vs. Union of

India and others, is dismissed for want of prosecution.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Lt Col Rajesh Kumar Shukla, SM Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.09.2014



On call, it has been informed by the Bench Secretary that Shri R.

Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant has gone to Nainital and

has requested for adjournment of the case for the day.

Departmental Representative, Major Narender Singh, with regard

to query made by us vide order dated 10.07.2014 from MS (Legal)

Army Headquarters, informs that the DV Ban imposed on the officers

has been lifted on 14.09.2005 and it has no effect in the matter of ACR

of the applicant after lifting of the ban.

Put up this case on Monday (08.09.2014).



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 252 of 2011

Raghav Ram Baghel Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.09.2014



There is no counter affidavit on record.

It comes out of the order sheet dated 17.02.2014, Shri P.N.

Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant was granted time to

reconstruct the file, but, today he is not present.

Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate informs that Mr. Chaturvedi has

gone to Nainital and has sought for adjournment.

List this case in due course for order on 01.12.2014. Since the

file is still incomplete, it shall not be listed for final hearing till further

orders to that effect.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 165 of 2013

Parikrama Jit Singh & Others Applicants


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.09.2014





Accordingly, O. A. No. 165 of 2013, Parikrama Jit Singh and

others vs. Union of India and others, is dismissed for non-prosecution.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 119 of 2010

Ravindra Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


03.09.2014



On call, it has been informed by Shri Rohit Kumar, Advocate,

that Shri R.Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, has gone to

Nainital and has requested for adjournment of the case, for the day.




SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1320 of 2014

Rishi Pal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Mrs. Deepti Prasad Bajpai on

behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned

standing counsel on this Original Application, which has been

preferred by the applicant with the prayer to quash the decision of

Medical Review Board dated 21.12.2013.

It comes out from the report of the Medical Review Board that

the applicant was not found fit for enrolment as Nursing Assistant in

the Indian Army.

Objection has been raised by the learned standing counsel

appearing for the respondents that this application is not maintainable

due to an embargo put under Section 2(1) of the Armed Forces

Tribunal Act, 2007, as, at present the applicant is not subject to Army

Act, Air Force Act or the Navy Act, as such this Original Application

is barred by the aforesaid Act and is not maintainable.

We have gone through the pleadings and the provisions of the

law as referred to above. We are in agreement with the objection

raised by the learned standing counsel.

Accordingly, this Original Application is dismissed as not

maintainable, at the admission stage itself.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 1386 of 2014

Ashok Kumar Das Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014




Application. He submits that the applicant is aggrieved against the

reply of the respondents dated 09.04.2014 on the legal notice given by

his counsel, contained at page 41 of the paper book.

It comes out from the pleadings that the applicant was aggrieved

against certain acts of the respondents, which was opened by sending

legal notice by his counsel to the respondents, on which reply has been

sent by the respondents vide reply to the said notice on 09.04.2014,

which is under challenge.

Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is

that the reply on the legal notice comes within “service matters” and,

as such, it falls within the parameter of Section 3 (o) of the Armed

Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

The applicant has further prayed that direction be issued to

respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to pay Rs.81,26,568/- as compensation to

the applicant for the loss and damage caused to the applicant due to

their torturous act towards the applicant.

We, while going through Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, find that

the impugned reply of notice, which is under challenge, does not fall

within the parameter of Section 3 (o) of the Act nor does it fall within

the parameter of Section 14 (2) of the Act.

It also comes out from the pleadings that the applicant had made

statutory complaint, which was rejected vide order dated 12.08.2010

passed by Air Marshal AOC-in-Charge, vide Annexure A-27, which is

not under challenge.

In these circumstances, as discussed above, the instant Original

Application does not fall either within the parameter of Section 3 (o)

or Section 14 (2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, as such it

cannot be termed as “service matters” as enshrined in the aforesaid

Sections. Hence the application is misconceived and deserves to be

dismissed.

Accordingly, the instant Original Application is dismissed at the

admission stage itself.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A.No. 1088 of 2014

Gajendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Mrs. Deepti Prasad Bajpai on

behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Her name be shown as counsel for

the said respondents, when the case is listed next.

This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in

filing the Original Application. As per office report dated 29.08.2014,

there is delay of 04 years, 11 months and 10 days in filing the Original

Application.

Learned standing counsel desires to file objection against the

said application. She may do so within six weeks.

List on 28.10.2014.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1089 of 2014

Md Samsul Haque Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014




respondent Nos. 1 to 5. His name be shown as counsel for the said

respondents, when the case is listed next.

This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in

filing the Original Application. As per office report dated 29.08.2014,

there is delay of 06 months and 29 days in filing the Original

Application.

Learned standing counsel desires to file objection against the

said application. He may do so within six weeks.

List on 27.10.2014.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1090 of 2014 with M.A. No 1091 of 2014

(Inre O.A. No. 282 of 2011)

Union of India & Others Applicants


Versus

Sudhakar Tripathi Respondent


Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014



Misc. Application Nos.1090 and 1091 of 2014

Application No.1090 of 2014 has been filed for condonation of

delay in filing the Application No.1091 of 2014 under Section 31 of

the Armed forces Tribunal Act, 2007, for grant of leave to appeal to

the Hon‟ble Apex Court against judgment and order dated 24.07.2013

passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.282 of 2011.

As per office report dated 01.09.2014, there is delay of 01 year

and 04 days in filing the application for leave to appeal.

We have gone through the reasons shown for delay in filing the

application under Section 31 of the Act, which provides that such

application should be filed within 30 days beginning with the date of

the decision. As is apparent, the instant application for leave to appeal

has been preferred beyond the statutory period of 30 days and the

power of condoning delay is not vested in the Tribunal. That apart, no

point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision,

against which application for leave to appeal has been moved.

Accordingly, the delay condonation application (Misc.

Application No.1090 of 2014) is rejected, and resultantly, the

application for grant of leave to appeal (Misc. Application No.1091 of

2014) is also rejected.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 7 of 2014

Lt Col P Vinay Kakkar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014



This Transferred Application has come before this Tribunal after

it having been transferred by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

Let it be placed before the Head of the Department (Hon‟ble Mr.

Justice S.C. Chaurasia) for nomination of Bench.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

EX-A No. 77 of 2013 with M.A. No 996 of 2014 &

M.A. No 1087 of 2014 (Inre T.A. No. 1407 of 2010)

Ram Yagya Ojha Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014



Copy of supplementary counter affidavit dated 25.08.2014 has

been supplied to the learned counsel for the applicant, today in court.

He may file objection to it, within three weeks.

List on 26.09.2014.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No 322 of 2013

(Inre O.A. No. 233 of 2010)

Ravi Pratap Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014



List this case along with Review Application No.13 of 2013

before the Bench concerned, on the date already fixed therein.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Nk Mukesh Chaudhary Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014



Misc. Application No.440 of 2014

Let the counter affidavit be taken on record.

List on 10.11.2014.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No 256 of 2013

Shiv Pratap Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014





Accordingly, O. A. No. 256 of 2013, Shiv Pratap Singh vs. Union

of India and others, is dismissed for non-prosecution.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Urmila Bai Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014



Misc. Application No.576 of 2014

This application has been filed with the prayer that the Original

Application be listed at Circuit Bench, Jabalpur.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and as prayed, list on

16.10.2014 at Circuit Bench, Jabalpur



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 42 of 2014 with M.A. No 604 of 2014 & M.A. No 828 of 2014

Hari Om Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014



On call, a person claiming himself to be Hari Om appeared and

stated his counsel is not available today and, as such the matter may be





SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 92 of 2014

Sep Kishan Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014



Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, prays for

and is granted two weeks‟ further time to file rejoinder affidavit.

List on 22.09.2014.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 100 of 2009

U.C. Verma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014





Accordingly, T. A. No.100 of 2009, U.C. Verma vs. Union of

India and others, is dismissed for non-prosecution.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 569 of 2010

Smt. Satya Bhama Panda Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014





Accordingly, O. A. No. 27 of 2010, Smt. Satya Bhama Panda vs.

Union of India and others, is dismissed for non-prosecution.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 27 of 2010

VK Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


02.09.2014



Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned

standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on this Original

Application, which has been preferred by the applicant challenging the

two orders dated 18.11.2008 and 19.05.2009.

It comes out of the pleadings that the applicant, who was serving

as soldier in the Army, was subjected to summary trial and thereafter,

he was awarded 07 days‟ Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 48 of

the Army Act, which on appeal, has been affirmed by the Lt. Col Offg.

AAG, vide order dated 19.05.2009.

Objection has been raised by the learned standing counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents that challenge in this

application, being in regard to award of 07 days‟ R.I. only, under

Section 48 of the Army Act, is not maintainable in view of Section 3

(o) (iii) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act.

We have gone through the pleadings and the provisions of law as

relied on by the learned standing counsel. We are in agreement with

the objection so raised by him.

Accordingly, the Original application No. 27 of 2010, V.K. Mishra

vs. Union of India and others, is dismissed.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 582 of 2014

Udai Shankar Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


01.09.2014



On call of the case in revised list, Shri P.K. Shukla, Advocate

appeared and stated that Shri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the

applicant has gone to Circuit Bench, Nainital, and prayed for

adjournment.

It comes out from the record that on the earlier date the counsel

for the applicant was granted time to file delay condonation

application, explaining each days‟ delay in filing the Original

Application, but the same, as per office report dated 28.08.2014, has

not been filed.

However, as prayed, list on 14.11.2014. The delay condonation

application may be filed, in the meantime.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 733 of 2014 with M.A. No 933 of 2014



Versus



Notes of the

Registry


01.09.2014



Shri R. Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, states that he

has to file reply to the objection filed on behalf of the respondents

against delay condonation application. For this purpose, he is granted

three weeks‟ time.

List on 26.09.2014.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 884 of 2014

Lakhvir Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


01.09.2014



As prayed by the learned standing counsel, he is granted three

weeks‟ further and no more time to file objection against delay

condonation application.

List on 29.09.2014.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3 EX-A. No. 15 of 2014

(Inre T.A. No 988 of 2010 with M.A. No 439 of 2014)

VD Jha Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


01.09.2014



On the case being called out, Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel

for the applicant appeared.

The matter relates to execution application, as usually, moved

for getting the judgment and order of this Tribunal passed as back as

on 7th

August, 2013 in T.A. No.988 of 2010 implemented by the

respondents.

On the last date, it was brought to our notice that Part II order

dated 25.04.2014 had already been issued by the EME (Records) to

the applicant and the applicant was asked to produce certain

documents with respect to certain queries made by them.

Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant submitted

that his client has already replied the queries made and submitted the

documents asked for, as far back as on 06.06.2014, but in spite of the

same, the judgment in question has not been complied with, as such

this Court vide order dated 27.08.2014 had granted time to

Departmental Representative, Major Narender Singh to seek

instructions as to whether necessary PPO has been issued to the

applicant and the today‟s date was fixed.

Today, the Departmental Representative, Major Narender

Singh, on the basis of instructions issued by OIC (Legal Cell) for OIC

Records, informs that the matter is pending with PAO (OR) EME,

Secunderabad.

Let notice be issued to the said authority asking him to appear

in person before us and to show cause as to why heavy cost be not

imposed upon him and the amount deducted from his salary and also

to show cause as to why adverse entries be not recorded in his Service

Record for putting hindrance in the implementation of the judgment

and order referred to above passed by this Tribunal and not complying

with the same, at the earliest.

List on 17.09.2014.

It is clarified that in case PPO is issued to the applicant in

compliance with the judgment and order passed by this Tribunal by

the next date fixed, the said Offer need not to appear.

The Registrar of the Tribunal is directed to take necessary steps

for follow-up actions in tune with the aforesaid order.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 791 of 2014

(Inre EXA No 06 of 2012 & T.A No 33 of 2010)

Ram Raj Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


01.09.2014



On call, a person claiming himself to be Ram Raj Singh, the

applicant, appeared and informed that his counsel has gone out of

station and the matter may be adjourned.




SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 203 of 2013

Pushkar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


01.09.2014



Departmental Representative, Major Narender Singh states that

the counter affidavit is ready and will be filed within a week in the

Registry of the Tribunal.

As prayed the counter affidavit may be filed within a week.

In the event of counter affidavit being filed, rejoinder affidavit, if

any, may be filed within three weeks thereafter.

List on 14.10.2014.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 92 of 2013

Ram Bali Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


01.09.2014



On call, Shri R. Chandra, Advocate appeared and stated that Shri

Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, has gone to

Circuit Bench, Nainital and has sought for adjournment.




SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 12 of 2014 Sumont Gupta Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


01.09.2014



Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he will be filing

Bench Copy in the Registry by today itself. It may be taken on record.

This case pertains to Navy. Earlier, writ petition was filed in the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and there the notices for the

respondents were accepted by Shri Deepak Verma, Advocate, but on

the case being transferred to this Tribunal by the High Court vide

order dated 30.04.2014, no one appears on behalf of the respondents.

Let notices be issued to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South

Block, New Delhi as well as to the Chief of the Naval Staff to show

cause as to whether they intend to contest the aforesaid case before

this Tribunal or not. Since no counsel appears on their behalf, let

notices be issued the aforesaid respondents, within a month.

List on 28.10.2014.

The Registrar is directed to take follow-up actions in tune with

the aforesaid order.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 195 of 2011

Vivek Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


01.09.2014



On case being called out, a person claiming himself to be Vivek

Kumar, the applicant, appeared and stated that his counsel has gone

out of station and prayed for adjournment.




SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 300 of 2012

RN Tripathi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


01.09.2014



Diary No.1470 of 2014

This application has been moved by Shri Shailendra Singh,

learned counsel for the applicant, seeking adjournment for the day and

has further prayed that this case may be listed on 13.10.2014 at Circuit

Bench, Jabalpur.

As prayed, list on 13.10.2014 at Circuit Bench, Jabalpur.



SRY

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 68 of 2013

Chandra Ballabh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


01.09.2014



On call, Departmental Representative, Major Narender Singh,

informed us that Major (Retd) R.D. Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant, has gone out of station and has sought for adjournment.




SRY

order sheet armed forces tribunal, regional bench, …aftlko.up.nic.in/c3 daily order/c3 order-sheet...

Documents