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

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 3

O.A. No. 72 of 2013

Kalu Singh 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

22.05.2015

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

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

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

along with Capt. Ridhishri Sharma, Departmental Representative.

On call of the case no one appears for the applicant. The Bench

Secretary informs that an application for adjournment by learned counsel for

the applicant is on record wherein it has been stated that the applicant’s

counsel will remain out of station today and, therefore, prays for

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

List on 2.7.2015 for admission before the appropriate Court having

jurisdiction, as per roster of that date.

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

Member (A) Member (J)

PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 41 of 2015

Parmjit Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.05.2015



Present: Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant, and Shri D.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, along

with Capt. Ridhishri Sharma, Departmental Representative.

On call of the case learned counsel for the respondents states that the

counter affidavit is ready and will be filed before the Registry during the

course of the day after serving a copy of the same on learned counsel for the

applicant. If the counter affidavit is filed today, the applicant may file

rejoinder affidavit within three days.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 1109 of 2010

Krishan Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus

Chief of Army Staff & Others Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


22.05.2015



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

Capt. Ridhishri Sharma, Departmental Representative.

Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents, is not

present in Court.

On call of the case learned counsel for the applicant states that he is

not prepared with the brief today. He, therefore, prays for adjournment.

Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.

List for hearing on admission on 3.7.2015 before the appropriate

Court having jurisdiction, as per roster of that date.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 141 of 2012

Rajneesh Tripathi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.05.2015



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











PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 298 of 2011

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.05.2015



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey on behalf

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

name be shown as counsel for the said respondents.

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

Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, along with


Heard learned counsel for the applicant at length.

In rebuttal learned counsel for the respondents will argue the case on

behalf of the respondents on the next date.

List for further hearing on 13.8.2015.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 282 of 2012 with M.A. No. 1016 of 2015

Sattar Khan Nukhani Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.05.2015



Present: Capt. Ridhishri Sharma, Departmental Representative.










PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A.(A) No. 1 of 2013

Anil Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.05.2015



Present: Capt. Ridhishri Sharma, Departmental Representative.

List has been revised. No one appears for the applicant, neither there

is any request to adjourn/pass over the case. Accordingly, O.A.(A) No. 1 of

2013 is dismissed for non-prosecution.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 395 of 2010

Jitendra Kumar Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.05.2015



Present: Col. R.N. Singh (Retd.), learned counsel for the applicant,

and Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents, along with


On the last occasion the respondents were directed to produce the

copy of Court of Inquiry. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the

copy of Court of Inquiry is not available with him today. He, therefore,

prays for adjournment to enable him to get the copy of Court of Inquiry and

to produce the same before this Court.

As a matter of last opportunity the case is adjourned for the day on

the request of learned counsel for the respondents. On the next date learned

counsel for the respondents will ensure that the copy of Court of Inquiry as

well as the proceedings under Army Rule 22 are produced before this Court.

List on 5.8..2015 for hearing before the appropriate Court having




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Brijendra Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


21.05.2015





Shri Prakhar Kankan, learned counsel for the respondents, is not

present in Court.

On call of the case learned counsel for the applicant prays for






PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

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


21.05.2015



Present: The applicant in person, and Shri A.K. Singh, learned

counsel for the respondents, along with WO Deshraj Singh,

Departmental Representative.

Aggrieved against non-implementation of the judgment and

order dated 6.12.2012, passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 101 of

2010 this Execution Application has been filed by the applicant as far

back as in May, 2013.

The stand of respondents no. 1 to 7 is that the aforesaid

judgment and order dated 6.12.2012 has been implemented and PPO

has been issued to respondent no. 8, i.e. the Chief Manager, State

Bank of India, CPPC, 4, Kutchery Road, Allahabad, but respondent

no. 8 is not honouring the PPO.

Accordingly, notice was issued to respondent no. 8 to file reply

but since no reply was filed by respondent no. 8, summon was issued

to him through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, and was

served on respondent no. 8, but inspite of that neither any one is

present on his behalf not reply has been filed.

Let, therefore, notice be issued to the Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Lucknow, for directing the Chief Manager, State

Bank of India, CPPC, 4, Kutchery Road, Allahabad, to appear before

this Court on 8.7.2015 along with his defence as also with his

explanation that despite service of notice and issuance of summon

why he has not cared to appear before this Court and to file a reply.

The Registrar of this Bench is directed that notice is issued to

the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Lucknow, within two

days.

List on 8.7.2015 for orders.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

EX.-A. No. 15 of 2014 with M.A. No. 439 of 2014, M.A. No. 410 of 2015 & M.A. No.

1009 of 2015

(Inre: T.A. No. 988 of 2010)

VD Jha Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


21.05.2015



Present: Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents,


On call of the case a request has been made on behalf of Shri Rohit

Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, for adjournment of the case.


List on 28.5.2015 for orders before the appropriate Court having




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

EX.-A. No. 11 of 2015

(Inre: O.A. No. 148 of 2013)

Jatinder Kumar Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


21.05.2015



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


Let notice be issued to the Chief of the Army Staff as well as

Additional Director General, respondents no. 2 and 3 respectively, to show

cause as to why inspite of judgment and order dated 13.2.2015, passed by

this Court in O.A. No. 148 of 2013, has not yet been implemented inspite of

specific direction for implementation of the judgment and order within a

period of one month positively and as to why cost of Rs. 50,000/- has not

yet been paid to the applicant, as observed in the aforesaid judgment and

order dated 13.2.2015.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 175 of 2014

Lt Col Harshwardhan Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


21.05.2015



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


Office report indicates that the notice sent to respondent no. 5 has

been served on him.

However, inspite of service of notice on respondent no. 5 neither any

one appears on his behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed. However,

as a matter of last opportunity, three weeks and no more time is granted to

respondent no. 5 as well as respondent no. 4 to file their respective counter

affidavits.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 1459 of 2010 with M.A. No. 824 of 2015

Ram Naresh Ram Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


21.05.2015



Present: Shri P.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, and


On call of the case Shri P.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant,

states that he is not prepared with the brief today. He, therefore, prays for






PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 382 of 2014

(Inare: EX.A. 34 of 2013 & O.A. No. 253 of 2011)

Tapeshwar Singh Applicant


Versus

GOC-in-C & Others Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


21.05.2015




Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt.

Ridhishri Sharma, Departmental Representative, and Lt. Col. Manikandan

V.

Aggrieved against non-implementation of the judgment and order

dated 17.10.2012, passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 253 of 2011, the

applicant has filed this Execution Application.

On 9.4.2015, while going through the order of the OIC Records

dated 11.4.2013 we found that one Brig. J.S. Dhull being OIC Records had

tried to interpret the aforesaid judgment and order of this Tribunal on his

own manner and bypassed the direction issued by this Tribunal in the

aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.10.2012. Therefore, notice was

issued to the OIC Records, EME Records, PIN 900453, C/o 56 APO, to

appear before this Court in person today, i.e. on 21.5.2015, along with the

record of the applicant and to satisfy this Court as to why and under what

circumstances he has passed the aforesaid order dated 11.4.2013 under

Regulation 143 of the Regulations for the Army contrary to the observations

made by this Tribunal in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.10.2012.

Today one Lt. Col. Manikandan V. has appeared before this Court

along with the record, since Brig. J.S. Dhull, OIC Records, is on leave. Lt.

Col. Manikandan V. tried to satisfy this Court in his own manner which is

not commensurate with the directions given by this Tribunal in the aforesaid

judgment and order dated 17.10.2012.

It is also noteworthy to indicate that no exemption application of

Big. J.S. Dhull is on record for his non-appearance before this Court today.

Restraining ourselves in imposing heavy costs for disobedience of

our earlier order dated 9.4.2015 by Brig. J.D. Dhull and not to appear before

this Court today, we again direct the OIC Records, EME Records, PIN

900453, C/o 56 APO, to appear in person before this Court along with the

record on 8.7.2015 and apprise this Court as to why the aforesaid judgment

and order dated 17.10.2012 has not yet been implemented it its letter and

spirit and as to why Section 15 of the Army Act has been ignored

deliberately by the officer concerned.

It is hereby clarified that if the OIC Records, EME Records, PIN

900453, C/o 56 APO, fails to appear in person, as directed above, before this

Court on the next date this Court will have no other option but to dealt with

OIC Records, EME Records, PIN 900453, C/o 56 APO, appropriately.

List this case again on 8.7.2015 for orders.

The Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to the DGEME,

Army Headquarters, New Delhi, for his perusal and necessary action. He

shall also ensure that the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.10.2012,

passed by this Tribunal, be not interpreted otherwise, according to the

fancies of the officers under his control, rather it be implemented in its letter

and spirit in toto.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 9 of 2010

Surya Mani Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


21.05.2015



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

WO Deshraj Singh, Departmental Representative.

Shri D.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, is not present in

Court today.



List on 7.7.2015 for hearing before the appropriate Court having




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 388 of 2010

Brijesh Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


21.05.2015




Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt.

Ridhishri Sharma, Departmental Representative.

On call of the case Capt. Ridhishri Sharma, Departmental

Representative, raised a preliminary objection that after SCM proceedings

Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, who was then Assistant Judge Advocate General, had

reviewed the SCM proceedings and countersigned on the said proceedings

and, therefore, he cannot appear as counsel for the applicant now.

Shri P.N. Chaturavedi showed his ignorance but simultaneously stated

that if he was then the AJAG, he intends to withdraw his Vakalatnama. He,

therefore, prays a week’s time to withdraw his Vakalatnama. He may do so

within a week, as prayed by him.

Further while going through the record we find that this case has not

yet been admitted, though it has been listed by the office for hearing.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY.- No. 2216 of 2014 with M.A. No. 870 of 2015 & M.A. No. 871 of 2015

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

Bhupendra Singh Bhadauria Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015



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

and Shri D.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt.


Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Aggrieved against the order of dismissal from service and

imprisonment for life in GCM the applicant preferred a petition under

Section 164(2) of the Army Act on 19.5.2014 before the competent

authority, which is pending disposal, though it ought to have been decided

within a period of six months from the date of presentation of the

representation.

The applicant having aggrieved against non-disposal of his petition

under Section 164(2) of the Army Act and the aforementioned punishments

awarded in GCM has preferred this O.A. before this Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to obtain the

outcome of the petition of the applicant filed under Section 164(2) of the

Army Act before the competent authority within a period of six weeks.

List on 30.7.2015 for orders/admission before the appropriate Court

having jurisdiction, as per roster of that date.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY.- No. 1075 of 2015

(Inre: T.A. No. 72 of 2012)

Ugrasen Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015





Misc. Application No. 1075 of 2015.

This is an application for recall of our order dated 29.4.2015

dismissing T.A. No. 72 of 2012 for non-prosecution.

We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this recall

application. The grounds for non-appearance on 29.4.2014 seems to be

genuine. Accordingly, the order dated 29.4.2015 is hereby recalled and the

T.A. is restored to its original number.

As prayed list on 3.8.2015 for admission before the appropriate




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY.- No. 1076 of 2015

(Inre: T.A. No. 727 of 2010)

Jaswant Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015






This is an application for recall of our order dated 29.4.2015

dismissing T.A. No. 727 of 2010 for non-prosecution.

We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this recall

application. The grounds for non-appearance on 29.4.2014 seems to be

genuine. Accordingly, the order dated 29.4.2015 is hereby recalled and the

T.A. is restored to its original number.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1383 of 2014 & M.A. No. 1803 of 2014

Dhebe Shashikant Babu Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015



Present: Shri U.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, and

Shri D.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt.


After hearing at some length, learned counsel for the applicant prays

that this case be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file it afresh before

the concerned Regional Bench of this Tribunal having jurisdiction.

As prayed, this Original Application is dismissed as withdrawn with

liberty to the applicant to prefer an application, as per advice, before the

concerned Regional Bench of this Tribunal having jurisdiction.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 59 of 2009

Jai Nath Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015



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

Shri D.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt.


This case has come on transfer from the Lucknow Bench of the

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and registered before this Tribunal as

Transferred Application No. 59 of 2009, but while going through the order-

sheets and the record of the case we do not find any order of the High Court

transferring this case before this Tribunal.

Office is, therefore, directed to trace the order of the High Court by

which this case has been transferred before this Tribunal.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Gajraj Singh Tomar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015



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

Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt.








PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Col Dayanand Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015



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



This is an application, filed by the applicant, for amendment of the

Original Application. On the requests made on behalf of the respondents

several opportunities were granted to file objection to this amendment

application, but no objection has yet been filed by the respondents, inspite of

stop order dated 13.4.2015 when the respondents were granted three weeks

and no more time to file objection.

Accordingly, the amendment application is allowed. Amendment be

incorporated by the applicant in the memo of T.A. within a week





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Smt. Chanchala Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015



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

D.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt. Ridhishri

Sharma, Departmental Representative.

This case relates to disability and family pension, claimed by the

applicant. It is a sad part of affair that this case was never marked as ‘part-

heard’ by this Court but inspite of that, on 2.12.2014, learned counsel for the

applicant impressed upon the Court concerned that it is a ‘part-heard’ case

of this Court and any how succeeded to get the case transferred before this

Court.

Since it is not a ‘part-heard’ case before this Court, the office is

directed to list this case on 27.5.2015 before the appropriate Court having

jurisdiction, as per roster.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 264 of 2014

Col Mahesh Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015



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

Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt.


This O.A. was admitted on 1.12.2014 and the respondents were

granted time to file counter affidavit. On 7.4.2015 when the case was listed

next the respondents prayed further six weeks’ time to file counter affidavit

which was granted with a rider that no more time will be granted to file

counter affidavit. Today, Shri Mukund Tewari submits that he has not yet

received parawise comments. He, therefore, prays that one last opportunity

be granted to file counter affidavit. As prayed by him, six weeks and no

more is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit. It is, however,

made clear that no further adjournment will be granted to file counter

affidavit.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A.(A). No. 248 of 2014 with M.A. No. 819 of 2015

Pradeep Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015



Present: Shri P.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, and


Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, is not

present in Court.

On call of the case learned counsel for the applicant submits that

inspite of time granted by this Court for filing rejoinder affidavit, he could

not file the same. He, therefore, prays for and is granted three weeks’ further

time to file rejoinder affidavit.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 211 of 2010

Shyam Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015






On call of the case learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is

granted further three weeks’ time to comply the order of this Court dated

10.3.2015.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 159 of 2010

Pratap Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015



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



Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The point in issue is that after GCM proceedings as to whether the

applicant has availed the remedy as provided under the Army Act, i.e.

whether the applicant has moved a petition under Section 164 of the Army

Act or not. Shri K.K. Mishra is to address the Court on this point on the next

date.

As prayed, list on 24.8.2015 for hearing before the appropriate Court




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 1271 of 2010

Raj Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015



Present: Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents,


On call of the case Shri B.N. Singh Rathore, Advocate, appeared and

stated that Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, is arguing

in some other 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

T.A. No. 1337 of 2010

Shailendra Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


20.05.2015



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

Prakhar Kankan, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt.


Heard learned counsel for the applicant at some length.

List on 31.7.2015 for further hearing.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 1 of 2009

Rakesh Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


19.05.2015



Dismiss.

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

on separate sheets.



rpm.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 128 of 2010

Mohitosh Mandal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


19.05.2015



Dismiss.

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

on separate sheets.



rpm.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3


Amit Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


19.05.2015



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

D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt.



By means of this application the respondents have filed objection to

the amendment application, filed by the applicant.

Since the amendment application, being M.A. No. 887 of 2014, has

already been allowed, vide order dated 17.4.2015, this application, being

M.A. No. 769 of 2015, filed by the respondents, stands rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on this Original Application.

Aggrieved against dismissal from service in SCM, the applicant has

approached this Tribunal by means of this O.A.

The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that

leave was duly sanctioned to the applicant by the competent authority while

serving in active service for a particular period and thereafter instead of

joining his Unit the applicant reported to the Depot Regiment at Jabalpur.

The above stand taken by the applicant and put up by learned counsel for the

applicant does not find place in the appeal itself, even then the submissions

are; (1) that this was the first offence of the applicant and the punishment

awarded is too harsh, and (2) that the applicant was asked by the Deputy

GOC to report back to Jabalpur.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, feel it

justiciable and appropriate that since the applicant has not availed the

alternative remedy, provided under Section 21 of the A.F.T. Act, 2007, the

applicant should avail the alternative remedy before coming to this Tribunal.

In view of above, this Original Application No. 161 of 2012 is

dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The applicant is granted

liberty, if so advised, to avail the alternative remedy by means of filing a

statutory petition before the competent authority within a period of three

weeks from today. The respondents are directed to decide the statutory

petition, if filed by the applicant within three weeks from today, with a

reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months for the date of

its filing.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 700 of 2010

Anand Kumar Srivastava Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


19.05.2015



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


On call of the case a person claiming himself to be Anand Kumar

Srivastava, the applicant, appeared and stated his counsel Shri M. Shukla,

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


As prayed, list on 19.8.2015 for admission before the appropriate




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 980 of 2014 with M.A. 420 of 2015 & M.A. 764 of 2015

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

Asha Ram Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


19.05.2015



Present: Shri Vinay Pandey holding brief of Shri P.N. Chaturvedi,

learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri D.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for

the respondents, along with Capt. Ridhishri Sharma, Departmental

Representative.

On call of the case Shri Vinay Pandey prays for and is granted two

months’ time to file amendment application.

However, while going through the O.A. we find that the applicant

has not availed the alternative remedy, available to him, since the matter

relates to summary disposal and the punishment awarded to the applicant is

severe reprimand. In our view this O.A. is not maintainable as of today

before this Tribunal on the basis of peadings.

In any case since time for filing amendment application has been

granted, list this case on 3.8.2015 for orders before the appropriate Court




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. (A). No. 191 of 2014 with M.A. 748 of 2015

Ravi Shankar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


19.05.2015



Present: Shri Vinay Pandey holding brief of Shri P.N. Chaturvedi,

learned counsel for the applicant, and Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, learned

counsel for the respondents, along with Capt. Ridhishri Sharma,

Departmental Representative.

Misc. Application No. 748 od 2015.

This application has been filed by the respondents accompanied with

counter affidavit. The counter affidavit is taken on record and the

application is disposed of.

Shri Vinay Pandey prays for and is granted two months’ time to file

rejoinder affidavit.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 315 of 2013

Sangram Singh Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


19.05.2015



Present: Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

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


On call of the case learned counsel for the applicant states that he

intends to amend the O.A., specially the prayer clause. He, therefore, prays

for and is granted one month’s time to file amendment application.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 6 of 2010

C.M. Bhatt Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


19.05.2015



Memo of appearance filed by Shri D.K. Pandey on behalf of

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

name be shown as counsel for the said respondents.

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


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

and Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, has not come to

this Court today. He, therefore, prays for adjournment. Accordingly, the

case is adjourned for the day.

This case is of the year 2010. However, as prayed by Shri Vinay

Pandey, list this case on 18.8.2015 for hearing before the appropriate Court




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 486 of 2010

Lalit Singh Chawda Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


19.05.2015



Present: Col. Y.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, and


On call of the case, learned counsel for the applicant prays for






PG.

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

Documents