form no. 4 {see rule 11(1)} order sheet armed ...aftlko.up.nic.in/c1 daily order/c1 order...

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

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 2

M.A. No. 2374 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Shiv Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus Union of India & Others Respondents

By Legal Practitioner for Respondents

Notes of the Registry

Orders of the Tribunal

20.10.2016

Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member (A)

Present : Shri Virat Anand, Ld Counsel for the applicant

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

respondents, assisted by Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, six weeks’

time is granted to file objection on application for condonation of

delay. Replication may be filed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant

within next two weeks.

List the case on 20.12.2016 for orders.

(Air Marshal Anil Chopra) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) jpt



M.A. No. 1602 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2187 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Arun Kumar Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus Union of India & Others Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents



20.10.2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member (A)

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

applicant and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Learned Counsel for the


As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant, three weeks’

time is granted to file reply on objection to application for

condonation of delay.





M.A. No. 2355 of 2016 Inre EX.A. No. 74 of 2016 & O.A. No. 3 of 2015

Smt. Rekha Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present : Col (Retd) Ashok Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the

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

assisted by Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

An statement has been made by Col Kamal Singh, OIC

Legal Cell that PPO has already been issued on 07.10.2016.

Copy of the order passed has been transferred on mobile to Shri

Rohit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant, hard copy of the

same be also provided to him within three days. It has also been

submitted by him that 25% back wages have also been

sanctioned.

In view of the above there is no reason to keep the matter

pending. Accordingly the application is rejected.




M.A. No. 2372 of 2016 Inre M.A. No. 2373 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 1368 of 2016

Kunwar A Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





Present :Shri Virat Anand Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents, assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, four weeks’


delay to recall the order. Two weeks’ time is granted to Ld.

Counsel for the applicant for replication.





EX-A. No. 54 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2348 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 260 of 2014

Bhaju Ram Prasad Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





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

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

by Maj Soma John, OIC Legal Cell.

M.A. No. 2348 of 2016

This is an application for taking on record the affidavit

regarding not signing pension documents by Zila Sainik Welfare

Officer. The same is taken on record. M.A. No. 2348 of 2016

stands disposed of.

O.A. No 260 of 2014

Final order of this Tribunal in O.A. No 260 of 2014 is dated

16.11.2015 which has not been complied with. According to Ld.

Counsel for the applicant, the applicant has submitted entire

records to Zila Sainik Welfare Officer but Zila Sainik Welfare

Officer has not signed and forwarded the same duly completed.

OIC Legal Cell submits that the officer of the Soldier Board has

already signed the necessary papers but it appears that the

papers have not yet reached to the Record Office. Let Zila

Sainik Welfare Officer be appear in person before this Tribunal

alongwith all records to explain as to why such delay has been

caused and as to why an exemplary cost may not be imposed for

such an inordinate delay.


Ld. Counsel for the respondents and the OIC Legal Cell

shall communicate immediately to the Secretary Soldier Board,

Mau about the aforesaid order.

Copy of this order be supplied to Ld. Counsel for the

parties and OIC Legal Cell by tomorrow.




EX-A. No. 180 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 89 of 2014

Vasudev Mishra Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant Versus

Union of India & Others Respondent By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




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

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

Maj Soma John, OIC Legal Cell.

Order of this Tribunal dated 10.03.2016 is still pending for

compliance. OIC Legal Cell submits that the matter is pending with

PAO (OR), AMC Lucknow. We have been informed by Ld. Counsel

for the applicant that sanction was issued on 03.08.2016 but even

after four months the order of this Tribunal has not been complied

with. The applicant has been informed vide letter dated 15.05.2016

that the matter is under process. It is not understandable for what

reason PAO (OR) AMC, Lucknow is keeping the matter pending.

Let Addl CDA, PAO (OR), AMC Lucknow be appear in person

and also file an affidavit as to why such delay has been caused in

compliance of this Tribunal though the sanction was granted by

Defence Ministry on 03.08.2016 and why the Tribunal may not

impose exemplary cost, which would be recoverable from Addl CDA,

PAO (OR), AMC Lucknow personally.

OIC Legal Cell shall convey the order forthwith to all concerned.

Copy of the order be provided to Ld. Counsel for the parties by

tomorrow.






Smt. Sharda Subba Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus Union of India & ORs Respondents




20.10.2016


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



Let record be produced by Ld. Counsel for the respondents

on the next date along with copy of the original order of dismissal

of the applicant.





M.A. No. 48 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1214 of 2016 & M.A. No. 1677 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Rajendra Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





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



As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant, list the case on

06.12.2016 for orders.





Rati Bhan Yadav Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





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



As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant, a week time is

granted to file reply to objection on application for condonation of

delay.






Smt. Anuradha Tewari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present : Shri Virat Anand Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

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


As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant, a week time is

granted to file reply to objection on application for condonation of

delay.





O.A. No. 122 of 2015

Prashantha Kumr PG Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





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

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


Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The order of dismissal passed against the applicant was set

aside by this Tribunal by order dated 17.10.2011 passed in T.A. No.

60 of 2010.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that all the consequential

benefits have not been provided to the applicant though Ld. Counsel

for the respondents submits the same have been paid but fact

remains that the break up of the payment has not been provided to

the applicant. Hence the applicant has right to know the correct fact.

It is the applicant’s right to receive the break up of entire

consequential benefits including the allowances and in case he finds

that some wrong has been done he may approach for judicial review

of the matter.

Accordingly we direct the respondents to provide break up of all

consequential benefits in writing in terms of order dated 17.10.2011

(supra) to the applicant expeditiously, say, within a period of three

months from today.

In terms of above directions we dispose of the O.A. finally.




O.A. No. 1 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1868 of 2016

Shyam Sunder Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





20.10.2016


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

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


As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, list the case

on 19.12.2016 for hearing.

On the date fixed, Ld. Counsel for the respondents shall

produce original documents pertaining to the case for perusal of

the Bench.

Ld. Counsel for the parties may submit/exchange synopsis,

and list of events.




O.A. No. 8 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1801 of 2016 & M.A. No. 1802 of 2016

Keshar Bahadur Tamang Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





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

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

assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC Legal Cell.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks time to file counter

affidavit.

As prayed, counter affidavit be filed within one week.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by Ld. Counsel for the

applicant within next one week.





T.A. No. 9 of 2015

Shamsul waris Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





20.10.2016


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

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


Supplementary affidavit filed by Ld. Counsel for the

applicant is taken on record. Ld. Counsel for the respondents

may file supplementary counter affidavit within two weeks.

Supplementary rejoinder affidavit be filed within one week

thereafter.


(Air Marshal Anil Chopra) (Justice D. P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) jpt



O.A. No. 103 of 2015 Amar Singh Baliyan Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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

and Mrs. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


On the earlier date, the order passed by the Court was to

the effect that JAG Branch of Armed Forces Tribunal Regional

Bench at Calcutta shall verify from the office of Marriage

Registrar the factum of second marriage solemnised by the

Applicant and also the factum as to who were the witnesses to

the aforesaid marriage.

When the case was called out, it appears that the counsel

for the respondents has not paid attention to the order passed by

the Court. On being confronted, both the counsel as well as OIC

Legal Cell expressed ignorance. It is a very sorry state of affairs

that the Court is not getting proper assistance either from the

counsel or the OIC Legal Cell.

Let Additional Solicitor General be informed to be present

in Court on the next date of hearing to assist the Court.

List this case on 05.12.2016 for hearing on which date the

counsel as well as the OIC Legal Cell shall obtain instructions

and update this Court in the light of the directions contained in

the order dated 22.09.2016.

(Air Marshal Anil Chopra) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) MH



T.A. No. 31 of 2012 with M.A. No. 2007 of 2015 Shatrughan Singh Chauhan Petitioner

By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner Versus

Union of India & Others Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




Present : Col (Retd) R.N. Singh & B.P.S. Chauhan, Ld

Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashish Chaturvedi & Mrs.

Appoli Shrivastava, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by


Respondents shall ensure that entire original records of

court of inquiry as well as SGCM or any other proceedings held

against the petitioner are produced in Court for perusal of the

Bench keeping in view earlier order.

Arguments to continue, list on 21.10.16 for further hearing.

(Air Marshal Anil Chopra) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) BLY



Dy. No. 288 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 13 of 2011 Baban Prasad Tiwari Petitioner


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





petitioner and Mrs. Appoli Shrivastava, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents ,assisted by Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed by learned counsel for the Applicant, the case

is directed to be listed for hearing on 23.11.2016.


Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET


M.A. No. 921 of 2016

Sanjeev Raturi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





20.10.2016


Present : Shri I.D. Paliwal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

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

by Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

The case was listed for being taken up by the Circuit

Bench at Nainital today. Since the sitting of the Circuit Bench has

been postponed, the case is directed to be listed before the

Circuit Bench at Nainital on 17.01.2017 for hearing.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 1867 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 133 of 2016 Ghanshyam Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant




20.10.2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J)

Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member (A)

Present : Shri Ashish Asthana, Ld. Counsel for the


respondents ,assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC Legal Cell.

The case is directed to be taken up with the case listed at

Serial No 23. The order passed in the case listed at Serial No 23

today shall govern the present case.




O.A. No. 239 of 2012 with T.A. No. 970 of 2010

Ram Roop Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner






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



Learned counsel for the Applicants prays for adjournment

of the case today to which learned counsel for the respondent

has no objection.

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





O.A. No. 195 of 2015 Narendra Kumar Rai Applicant






Present : Col (Retd) Ashok Kumar , Ld. Counsel for the



Learned counsel for the Applicant prays for adjournment of

the case today to which learned counsel for the respondents has

no objection.

List this case on 07.11.2016 for hearing.


Form No. 4



O.A. No. 133 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2107 of 2016 Ghanshyam Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant









We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

The Judgment is reserved.

Learned counsel for the Applicant prays for interim order

submitting that the drill of the Applicant is complete and he is in

the process of being discharged very soon. He further submits

that in case the Applicant is allowed to be discharged, it would

frustrate the very purpose of filing the present O.A.

Having considered the submission on interim orders, we

are of the view that the interest of justice would be best served, if

some protective order by way of interim measure is passed.

In view of the above, it is directed by way of interim

measure that the Applicant shall not be discharged and shall be

allowed to continue in service till final orders to be passed by this

Tribunal.




O.A. No. 164 of 2016 Rajveer Singh Applicant






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

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

,assisted by Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

Counter affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the Applicant prays for and is granted

three weeks’ time to file rejoinder affidavit.

List this case for hearing on 08.12.2016.




O.A. No. 218 of 2016 Shitla Prasad Singh Applicant






Present : Shri R.Chandra learned counsel for the Aplicant

and Mrs. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the respondents

,assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to

produce the original order in terms of the earlier order passed by

this Court.

As prayed, the case is directed to be listed on 23.11.2016

for hearing on which date original record shall be produced for

perusal of the Bench in terms of the earlier order.




R.A. No. 29 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 73 of 2011 Om Prakash Rai Applicant






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

applicant and Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


We have been told that Shri P.N.Chaturvedi, learned

counsel for the Applicant is down with dengue related fever and

is bed ridden.

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

to be listed for hearing on 21.12.2016.


Form No. 4



T.A. No. 1451 of 2010 Anil Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner






Present : Col (Retd) Ashok Kumar , Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner and Dr. Shesh Narain Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the


As prayed by learned counsel for the Applicant, the case is

directed to be listed on 22.11.2016 for hearing.


Form No. 4


ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 2 (Cases taken in Court No. 1)


Shri Pal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





19.10.2016

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mateen, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member (A) Present : Shri Vijay Kumar, Ld Counsel for the petitioner

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


M.A. No. 2340 of 2016

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing

original application, which has been filed for quashing of the

Summary Court Martial proceedings vide order dated

09.02.1989. As per office report there is a delay of 27 years and

26 days in filing of original application. Copy of this application

has been served upon Ld. Counsel for the respondents on

07.10.2016.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents Shri Virendra Singh prays

for and is granted six weeks’ time to file objection on application

for condonation of delay.

Replication, if any, may be filed by Ld. Counsel for the

applicant within next two weeks thereafter.


.

(Air Marshal Anil Chopra) (Justice Abdul Mateen) Member (A) Member (J) jpt

Form No. 4



M.A. No. 2351 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2016 Shiv Bahadur Gurung Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant




19.10.2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mateen, Member (J)


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

and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Learned Counsel for the


M.A. No. 2351 of 2016

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the

original application. The applicant is aggrieved against an

outcome of order dated 01.12.2015 and discharge order dated

31.03.2012. It has been reported by office that there is a delay

of four months and twelve days in filing original application.

Copy of this application has been served upon Ld. Counsel for

the respondents on 17.10.2016.

Ld Counsel for the respondents prays for and is allowed

six weeks time to file objection on application for condonation of

delay. Replication, if any, may be filed by Ld. Counsel for the

applicant within next two weeks.



Form No. 4



EX-A. No. 213 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 77 of 2012 Smt. Urmila Devi Chauhan W/o Late Nanu Singh Chauhan & Others. Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants





19.10.2016

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mateen, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member (A)

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

and Shri A.N. Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


This execution application has been filed by the applicants

being aggrieved with respect to non-implementation of order

dated 04.01.2016 passed in O.A. No. 77 of 2012 directing the

respondents to reconsider the applicant’s case after taking into

consideration original material on record by passing speaking

and reasoned order with due communication to the applicant,

expeditiously, say within four months. Copy of this application

has been served upon Shri A.N. Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents, who on the basis of instructions received from Col

Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell, informs that the case of the

applicant has already been considered and has been disposed

by a detailed order dated 20.07.2016 and communicated to the

applicant.

Accordingly the execution application has become

infructuous and is disposed of as infructuous.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 2204 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2205 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 328 of 2010

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

Versus Anand Kumar Singh Petitioner-respondent

By Legal Practitioner for Respondent- Petitioner



19.10.2016


Present : Shri Kaushik Chatterji, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant – respondents, assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC Legal

Cell.

M.A. No. 2204 of 2016


application for leave to appeal under Section 32 of the Armed

Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 against order dated 18.11.2015

passed in T.A. No. 328 of 2010 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice

D.P. Singh, Member ‘J’ and one of us (Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil

Chopra, Member ‘A’).

List this application before appropriate Bench on



Form No. 4



M.A. No. 2355 of 2016 Inre EX-A. No. 74 of 2016 & O.A. No. 3 of 2015

Smt. Rekha Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





19.10.2016



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


M.A. No. 2355 of 2016

This is an application for recall of order dated 25.07.2016

passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member ‘J’ and one

of us (Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member ‘A’).

As prayed, put up tomorrow i.e. 20.10.2016 for orders.


Form No. 4




R.N. Mishra Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus Union of India & Others Respondent




19.10.2016


Present : Shri Bhasker Pratap Dubey, Ld. Counsel for the

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

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

M.A. No. 2361 of 2016


application for restoration of the case which was passed by the

Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member ‘J’

and one of us (Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member ‘A’).

List before the appropriate Bench on 12.12.2016 as per

roster of that date.


Form No. 4




R.N. Mishra Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus Union of India & Ors Respondents




19.10.2016


Present : Shri Bhasker Pratap Dubey, Ld. Counsel for the

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

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

M.A. No. 2363 of 2016


application for restoration of the case which was passed by the

Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member ‘J’

and one of us (Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member ‘A’).




Form No. 4



T.A. No. 1346 of 2010 Shesh Nath Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner






Present : None for the petitioner. Mrs. Amrita Chakraborty,

Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Soma John,

OIC Legal Cell.

On the request made on behalf of petitioner’s counsel Shri

Ziauddin Khan by Shri Rohit Kumar that the case may be

adjourned since he has not come to the court, the case is

adjourned.

As prayed, list the case on 14.12.2016 for orders.


Form No. 4



EX-A. No. 114 of 2016 In re O. A. No. 222 of 2011 & M.A. No. 2321 of 2016

Rajesh Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





19.10.2016


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

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


M.A. No. 2321 of 2016

This is an application for clarification of order dated

01.12.2015 passed by the Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr.

Justice D.P. Singh, Member ‘J’ and one of us (Hon’ble Air

Marshal Anil Chopra, Member ‘A’) passed in O. A. No. 222 of

2011.




Form No. 4



M.A. No. 1916 of 2015

Bal Krishna Tripathi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





19.10.2016


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

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


Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted ten

days time to file replication on application for condonation of

delay.

As prayed, list this case before appropriate Bench on

05.12.2016 for orders as per roster of that date.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 131 of 2016

Raj Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





19.10.2016


Present : Shri O.P. Kushwaha, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Mrs. Amrita Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC Legal Cell.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two

weeks’ further time to file rejoinder affidavit.



Form No. 4



M.A. No. 243 of 2016 with M.A. No. 244 of 2016, M.A. No. 1443 of 2016 & M.A. No. 2162 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Suraj Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant




19.10.2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mateen, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member (A)

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







ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW ( Cases of Court No. 2 taken in Court No. 1)

M.A. No. 394 of 2016 with M.A. No. 395 of 2016 & M.A. No. 1964 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 1283 of 2010

Inderjeet Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner






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

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


Learned counsel for the Applicant has stated that he had

filed supplementary affidavit on 02.09.2016 in the Registry. The

aforesaid supplementary affidavit is not traceable on record.

The office is directed to trace out the supplementary

affidavit filed on 02.09.2016 and restore the same to the record

of this case by the date when the case is next listed.,

List this case for orders on 14.12.2016.

(Air Marshal Anil Chopra) (Justice Abdul Mateen) Member (A) Member (J) MH

Form No. 4



M.A. No. 422 of 2016 In Ref: with M.A. No. 423 of 2016, M.A. No. 1044 of 2016, Inre T.A. No. 1340 of 2010

Shyam Lal Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





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



Learned counsel for the Applicant states that he intends to

file replication to the objection for which 10 days be granted.

As prayed, 10 days time is granted to file replication to the

objection.

List this case on 15.11.2016 for orders.




M.A. No. 719 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2251 of 2016 Satyaveer Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





19.10.2016


Present: None for the applicant and Shri V.P.S. Vats, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Col Kamal Singh, OIC

Legal Cell.

On case being called out there is no appearance for the

Applicant.

Shri V.P.S.Vats learned counsel appearing for the

respondents states that objection is ready to be filed and the

same will be filed in the registry in the course of the day.

In view of the above, the case is ordered to be listed

on15.12.2016 for orders before the Bench concerned.




M.A. No. 1260 of 2016 with R.A. No. 50 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 174 of 20109

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

Versus Rama Shankar Respondent- Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for Respondent- Petitioner





Present: Mrs. Appoli Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the

applicants- respondent, assisted by Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal

Cell and Shri Yash Pal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondent-

petitioner.

This is an application for review of the order of the Tribunal

dated 06.11.2015 in T.A No 174 of 2009.

List this case on 12.12.2016 before the Bench concerned

for orders.




M.A. No. 1649 of 2016 with R.A. No. 84 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 261 of 2013

Dinesh Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





19.10.2016


Present : Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell for the

respondents.

This is an application for review of the order of the Tribunal

dated 18.08.2015 In O.A No 261 of 2013.

List this case on 16.12.2016 before the Bench concerned

for orders.




O.A. No. 179 of 2014 with O.A. No. 217 of 2014 Deepak Badakoti Applicant






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



This is a case which was listed before the Circuit Bench at

Nainital commencing from 17.10.2016. Since sitting of the Circuit

Bench at Nainital has been postponed, the case is ordered to be

listed before the Circuit Bench at Nainital on 18.01.2017.


Form No. 4




Praveen Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





19.10.2016


Present : Shri S.C. Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

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


Shri V.P.Pandey holding brief of Shri S.C.Yedav, learned

counsel for the Applicant states that the case be adjourned today

as Shri S.C.Yadav has not come to Court today.

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

to be listed for orders on 20.12.2016.

(Air Marshal Anil Chopra) (Justice Abdul Mateen) Member (A) Member (J) JPT

Form No. 4



O.A. No. 311 of 2015 with M.A. No. 154 of 2016 Nirma Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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

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


Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that rejoinder

affidavit is ready to be filed and he would file it in the registry

during the course of the day.

In view of the above, 10 days’ time is granted and the case

is ordered to be listed on 14.12.2016 for orders.





Raghvendra Pratap Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





19.10.2016


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

Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents


It is informed that stop order was passed on 26.08.2016

whereby four weeks’time was granted to learned counsel for the

respondents to file counter affidavit. Despite stop- order no

counter affidavit has been filed.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for more time

to file counter affidavit.

As prayed, four weeks’ and no more further time is granted

to file counter affidavit, of course, subject to payment of cost

which we quantify at Rs 10,000/- which shall be deposited with

the Registry of the Tribunal within a week.





T.A. No. 595 of 2010 with M.A. No. 2054 of 2015 Vijay Keshav Singh Petitioner






Present : None for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Mishra,

Ld. Counsel for the respondents ,assisted by Maj Soma John,

OIC Legal Cell.

On case being called out, it is informed that Shri

P.N.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Applicant is down with

dengue fever and is bed-ridden.


to be listed on 02.01.2017 for orders.




T.A. No. 1047 of 2010 Dev Bahadur Singh Sikarwar Petitioner






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



On case being called out, it is informed that Shri

P.N.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Applicant is down with

dengue fever and is bed-ridden.


to be listed on 02.01.2017 for orders.




O.A. No. 108 of 2011 Pravesh Kumar Applicant






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

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


Since the case is listed for further hearing, it is ordered to

be listed on 14.12.2016 before the Bench concerned for further

hearing.




O.A. No. 266 of 2011 Chand Pati Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





19.10.2016


Present: Shri Dharmesh Sinha, Ld. Counsel for the





hearing.




T.A. No. 108 of 2011 Smt. Geeta Rawat & ORs Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





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





hearing.




O.A. No. 44 of 2010 Paras Nath Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: Shri K.K. Singh Bisht, Ld. Counsel for the

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


As prayed, the case is ordered to be listed on 18.01.2017

for hearing before the appropriate Bench having jurisdiction as

per roster of that date.




O.A. No. 183 of 2010 Satish Kumar Singh Applicant






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

and Shri Ashish Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the respondents








O.A.No. 195 of 2010 Anil Kumar Arya Applicant






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

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








O.A. No. 37 of 2011 Narayan Singh Applicant













Form No. 4


ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW ( Cases of Court No. 2 taken in Court No. 1) O.A. No. 41 of 2015 with M.A. No. 80 of 2016

Parmjit Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant







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








O.A. No. 97 of 2015 with M.A. No. 1018 of 2016 Deb Singh Applicant






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







Form No. 4



O.A. No. 317 of 2015 Ataullah Khan Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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








ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW ( Cases of

Court No. 2 taken in Court No. 1)

O.A. No. 144 of 2016 Rajendra Prasad Pal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant







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


for orders.




O.A. No. 157 of 2016 Jog Dhyan Sharma Applicant













Form No. 4



T.A. No. 86 of 2011 G.C. Yadav Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner






Present: Col (Retd) Ashok Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the

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








M.A. No. 1789 of 2016 Arvind Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





18.10.2016


Present :Shri R.K. Verma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

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


Objection to the Application for condonation of delay filed

today is taken on record.

Reply thereto if any may be filed within two weeks.



Form No. 4



T.A. No. 1036 of 2010 Jasawant Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner






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

and Dr. Chet Narain Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed, list this case for hearing on 06.12.2016.




T.A. No. 9 of 2015 Shamsul Waris Petitioner






Present : None for the petitioner and Shri R.K.S. Chauhan,

Ld. Counsel for the respondents assisted by Maj Soma John,

OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the Applicant is said to be ill.

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

orders on 20.10.2016.




O.A. No. 274 of 2012 Imran Khan Applicant






Present: Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld. Counsel for the



This case is listed for hearing today. When the case was

taken up, it appeared that the prayer for grant of disability

pension does not find mention in the prayer column of the O.A.

Learned counsel for the Applicant states that the

Application for amendment filed by the Applicant has already

been allowed whereby the alternative prayer for made for grant

of disability pension.

From the record, it transpires that the requisite amendment

has not been carried out in the prayer column in terms of the

prayer made in the amendment Application.

As prayed, the learned counsel for the Applicant is

permitted to incorporate amendment in the prayer column of the

O.A in terms of the prayer made in the amendment Application.



Form No. 4



O.A. No. 492 of 2012 Bans Raj Pal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present : Shri Shri Kant Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the


The case is listed today for hearing.

We are informed that the original record pertaining to ACR

entries is not available today.


Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to produce

the original record aforesaid on the next date of listing for perusal

of the Bench.




O.A. No. 317 of 2015 Ataullah Khan Applicant






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

applicant and Shri Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the


As prayed, list this case on 19.10.2016 for hearing.





Lt Col Rajeev Bhola Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






Present : Shri Harshvardhan , Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents

,assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC Legal Cell. Ms Soma Pandey

for the respondent no 7.

Ms Soma Pandey appeared on behalf of the respondent

no 7 and filed counter affidavit. The counter affidavit filed on

behalf of the respondent no 7 is taken on record.


three weeks’ time to file rejoinder affidavit.





O.A. (A) No. 81 of 2012 Manoj Singh Applicant









Since the case was listed today to be taken up by the

Circuit Bench at Nainital, which for certain reason could not hold

sitting in the week commencing from 17.10.2016, the case is

ordered to be listed on 17.01.2017 for being taken up by the

Circuit Bench at Nainital.


Form No. 4



O.A. (A) No. 167 of 2014

Hav Govind Singh Bisht Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present : None for the applicant and Dr. Shailendra

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

Soma John, OIC Legal Cell.

Shri P.N.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Applicant is

reported to be ill.


to be listed on 15.12.2016 for hearing.




T.A. No. 802 of 2010 Smt. Ashma Sultana Petitioner







petitioner and Shri Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the


We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

length.

The judgment/order is reserved.

It would be open to the learned counsel for the parties to

submit written arguments within two days.




T.A. No. 1455 of 2010 with M.A. No. 1693 of 2016

Sarvjit Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner







petitioner and Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the


Learned counsel for the Applicant is allowed three weeks

time to file response.

List this case on 23.11.2016




T.A. No. 59 of 2011 Hayat Singh Bankoti Petitioner






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



As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, the case is

ordered to be listed for hearing on 16.01.2017 before the Circuit

Bench at Nainital.




T.A. No. 31 of 2012 with M.A. No. 2007 of 2015 Shatrughan Singh Chauhan Petitioner






Present : Col (Retd) R.N. Singh & B.P.S. Chauhan, Ld

Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashish Chaturvedi & Mrs.

Appoli Shrivastava, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by


Learned Counsel Shri Ashish Chaturvedi, while

proceeding with the arguments, made a statement across the

bar that the court of inquiry convened on 13th Apr 1990 has

nothing to do with the controversy and the record presented

would reveal that no SGCM was held against the petitioner

based on that inquiry. It has been submitted that this court of

inquiry has also not been challenged or impugned in the present

O.A.

Petitioner has filed affidavit in response to the affidavit filed

by the respondents on 17 Oct 16 (Yesterday) which is taken on

record.

From perusal of record of court of inquiry dated

05th Oct 90 Col (Retd) R.N. Singh, representing the petitioner

submitted that out of 29 witnesses the petitioner has cross -

examined only 7 witnesses and rest have not been

examined/cross-examined since the records were not provided

to him.

Arguments to continue, list on 20.10.16 for further hearing.

(Air Marshal Anil Chopra) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) BLY



EX-A No. 211 of 2016 Inre M.A. No. 114 of 2016, M.A. No. 1561 of 2016 & M.A. No. 1562 of 2016

Nihal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





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

applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Learned Counsel for the


An statement has been made by OIC Legal Cell that by an

order dated 09.08.2016 the applicant has been permitted to resume

duty. We have been informed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that

the applicant approached to resume duty but he was not permitted to

join the same. For convenience sake paras (c), (d), (e) and (f) of

execution application are reproduced as under :-

“(c) That applicant has approached concerning unit with

the aforesaid order of dated 27.07.2016 on 05.09.2016 and

after departure from Kanpur to Sikanderabad on 03.09.2016

by Train No 12591 Kanpur to Hyderabad. The copy of the

Railway ticket dated 03.09.2016 is being annexed herewith.

(d) That on 05.09.2016 at about 8 am. On R.P. Gate 2T

Range on main gate information was given by the

applicant regarding Tribunal order dated 27.07.2016 and

later on matter was referred to JCO Sudhir Kumar who has

not given any response and afterwards applicant approached

concerning higher officer through on duty personal but matter

of surprise proper response has not been given and refusal

was shown by the authorities with the comment applicant

will be not allowed to resume service.

(e) That after two days moving here and there at unit

concerning authorities of unit has not taken any cognizance and

deadly refused regarding compliance of the order dated

27.07.2016 due to that having no option applicant returned

back on 06th September 2016 by train Sikanderabad to Kanpur.

The copy of the Railway ticket dated 06.09.2016 is being

annexed herewith as Annexure No E-3 to this execution

application.

(f) That inspite of no change order which has been observed

by opposite party during argument in Tribunal even though

applicant has been discharged from service since last 3 years

pendency of the aforesaid case Hon’ble Tribunal has given

order in favour of the applicant and direction to the authorities

concerned on dated 27.07.2016 to allow applicant to resume

duties even though order has not been complied with by the

authorities concerned due to that execution application has

been preferred in Hon’ble Court by the applicant for the

compliance of the order dated 27.07.2016.”

Let an inquiry be held in the matter and report be submitted in

terms of pleadings on record that who are the officers accountable in

not permitting the applicant to resume duty inspite of order passed by

the competent authority as well as the order dated 27.07.2016. We

hope and trust that the applicant shall be permitted to resume duty

following the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by Artillery Records.

The inquiry shall be held by an officer not lower than the rank of

Colonel/Commanding Officer.

Copy of this order shall be provided to parties counsel.

List on 28.11.2016 for orders.




M.A. No. 1788 of 2016 A.K. Das Applicant






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

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

assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, two weeks’

and no more time is granted to file objection on application for

condonation of delay. Replication may be filed by Ld. Counsel

for the applicant within next two weeks thereafter.





Dy No. 8 of 2016 with M.A. No. 380 of 2016, M.A. No. 1442 of 2016 & M.A. No. 1571 of 2016

Sinhasan Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






Present : Col (Retd) Y. R. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the



We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties.

The applicant was dismissed from service on 03.08.2010.

Thereafter he preferred O.A. bearing No 244 of 2010 which was

dismissed on 20.04.2015 on the ground of alternative remedy

under section 164 (2) of the Army Act. The applicant preferred

statutory complaint to Chief of the Army Staff which according to

Ld. Counsel for the applicant is still pending. However OIC

Legal Cell makes statement that the complaint submitted by the

applicant has been dismissed by the Chief of the Army Staff by

an order dated 30.09.2016 which seems to have not been

provided to the applicant.

Let a copy of the order dated 30.09.2016 dismissing the

statutory complaint be provided to Ld. Counsel for the applicant

on next date.





Dy. No. 669 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1623 of 2016 & M.A. No. 2021 of 2016 In re O.A. No. (Nil) of 2016

Lal Babu Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





18.10.2016



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


M.A. No. 2021 of 2016

Objection against the application for condonation filed by

Ld. Counsel for the respondents is taken on record. M.A. No.

2021 of 2016 is disposed of accordingly.

O.A. No. (Nil) of 2016





M.A. No. 201 of 2016 with M.A. No. 801 of 2016 & M.A. No. 844 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. (Nil) of 2016

Rakesh Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus Union of India & Others Respondent By Legal Practitioner for Respondents





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



M.A. No. 801 of 2016

This is an application for condonation of delay. Applicant

is aggrieved by orders dated 05.02.2004 and 27.01.2007 passed

by the Commanding Officer on the ground that the procedure

prescribed has not been followed. Submission is that the

procedure provided for red ink entries in pursuance of Army

Order 28.12.1988 has not been followed and punishment has

been awarded with severe reprimand. It is also submitted that

the applicant has been deprived of his 28 day’s salary in an

illegal manner. In consequence thereto the applicant is losing

promotional avenues also.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant has cited number of

judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court while preferring the application

for condonation of delay, some of them have been referred in

para 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the application. For convenience sake

paras 7, 8, 9 and 10 are reproduced as under:-

“7. That Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Devi (Smt.) Vs.

U.P. State (AIR 1988-133) held – There is no denying the

fact that the court is required to take a broad view in the

matter of condonation of limitation, so as to advance the

cause of justice.

8. That Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of its judicial

decisions held that – in the matter of condoning the delay,

the object should be to advance the cause of justice. In

Bhag Singh vs. Major Daljit Singh (1987) (supp)-SCC-685,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that –while

considering an application for condonation of delay, the

court will consider the facts and circumstances not for

taking too strict and pedantic stand which will cause of

injustice, but to consider it from the point of taking a view

which will advance the cause of justice. Same view taken

in Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Sudha Rani (AIR 1978 SC-

537) (para 8). In Sital Prasad Saxena Vs. UOI (1985) 1

SCC-163.

9. That Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Gupta

vs. UOI and Ors (1995) 5-SCC-628 decided on 21.08.1995

held that –point of limitation will not arise when it is

established that there is a continuing wrong going rise to a

recurring cause of action.

10. That a Division Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in UOI

and Ors Vs. Tarsem Singh decided on 13.08.2008 (2009)

(1) AISLJ-371 gave following verdict in the matter of

limitations:-

(i) In case of pension cause arises every month.

(ii) A claim based on continuous wrong can be

allowed irrespective of delay.

(iii) Continuing wrong applies in service law also.

(iv) Continuing wrong is a single act causing

continuous injury”.

Though while submitting reply the respondents asserted

that applicant has failed to explain the delay and it is not the

case of recurring cause of action. Further submission of Ld.

Counsel for the respondents is that the applicant has not

disclosed the day-to-day delay and in the absence of day-to-day

disclosure of delay, the application for condonation of delay

should be rejected.

We have considered the rival contentions of Ld. Counsel

for the parties and perused the records. As referred to by Ld.

Counsel for the applicant, in the judgments referred hereinabove

the purpose of judicial review is to advance the cause of justice.

The Court should not take too strict and pedantic stand which

may cause prejudice, but to consider it from the point of view

which may advance the cause of justice. In the present case

since the question involved is with regard to red ink entries and a

decision in same matter has already been settled by this Tribunal

in OA. No. 168 of 2013, decided on 23.09.2015 (Abhilash

Singh Kushwah vs. Union of India & ors) and more over the

procedure prescribed for red ink entries matters has not been

followed, which is creating obstacle in applicant’s promotional

avenues, there shall be great prejudice in case delay is not

condoned in the instance case.

Keeping in mind that no strict and pedantic stand should

be adopted while disposing of application for condonation of

delay and cause of justice should be advanced in such a way

which may not cause any prejudice, we feel that sufficient cause

has been shown to condone the delay.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents has not cited any case

law in rebuttal of the cases referred to above by Ld. Counsel for

the applicant in his reply. During the course of arguments also,

Ld. Counsel for the respondents has not produced any case law

to rebut the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the

applicant.

In view of the above, there is no other option but to

condone the delay. Accordingly cause shown is sufficient and

delay is condoned.

O. A. is taken on merit.

Admit.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents may file counter affidavit

within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by Ld.

Counsel for the applicant within next two weeks thereafter.





M.A. No. 1418 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2346 of 2016 R.R. Joshi Applicant






Present : Col (Retd) Y.R. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Mrs Appoli Shrivastava, Ld. Counsel for the


Two weeks further time is granted to Ld. Counsel for the

respondents to file objection on application for condonation of

delay.

Two weeks’ time thereafter is granted to Ld. Counsel for

the applicant to file replication.


(Air Marshal Anil Chopra) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) gsr



O.A. No. 496 of 2012 with M.A. No. 1013 of 2016 Nizamuddin Applicant







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


M.A. No. 1013 of 2016

Supplementary counter affidavit filed by Ld. Counsel for

the respondents in compliance of order dated 31.03.2016 is

taken on record. M.A. No. 1013 of 2016 is disposed of.

O.A. No. 496 of 2012

Ld. Counsel for the applicant may file replication, if any

within two weeks.





O.A. No. 18 of 2014 Gokula Nand Pandey Applicant







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


List the case on 25.01.2017 for orders awaiting the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.




T.A. No. 364 of 2010 Hari Babu Nishad Petitioner






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

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


List the case on 24.10.2016 for hearing as agreed by Ld.

Counsel for the parties.



the Bench.


and list of events.




T.A. No. 565 of 2010

Khima Nand Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner






Present : Shri H. S. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner



List the case on 16.01.2017 for orders at Circuit Bench,

Nainital.




O.A. (A) No. 210 of 2010 Rashmi Shukla Applicant







applicant and Maj Soma John, OIC Legal Cell for the

respondents.

We have been informed that Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents is suffering from illness.

As prayed, list the case on 15.12.2016 for hearing.

On the date fixed, Ld. Counsel for the respondents shall produce

original documents pertaining to the case for perusal of the

Bench.


and list of events.




T.A. No. 8 of 2016

Ex Naik Pitambar Mehto Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





17.10.2016


Present : None for the petitioner. Dr. Chet Narain Singh,


OIC Legal Cell.

Case called out in the revised list. None appeared on

behalf of the petitioner to press this petition in second round after

pass over.

Dr. Chet Narayan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents

appeared and opposed the petition.

T.A. No 08 of 2016 is dismissed for non prosecution.

Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.

(Air Marshal Anil Chopra) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) anb



EX-A. No. 181 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 81 of 2010

Achche Lal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





17.10.2016



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


Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted a

week’s time to file counter affidavit to the execution application

containing paragraph reply.

One week’s time thereafter is granted to the Ld. Counsel

for the applicant to file replication.





M.A. No. 942 of 2014 with M.A. No. 2143 of 2015 & M.A. No. 1671 of 2016

Hari Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant














Sharad Prakash Pal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present : None for the applicant. Shri R.K.S. Chauhan, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC

Legal Cell.


behalf of the petitioner to press this application in second round

after pass over.

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

present.

M.A. No. 515 of 2016, application for condonation of delay,

is rejected for non prosecution.




O.A. No. 137 of 2014

Sunder Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant







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


Let affidavit be filed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents

annexing thereto opinion of the Medical Board according to

which the applicant has been declared fit.

List on 25.10.2016 for hearing.



the Bench.


and list of events.





Shatrughan Singh Chauhan Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





17.10.2016


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

applicant and Miss Appoli Shrivastava, Ld. Counsel for the


Ld. Counsel for the respondents Miss Appoli Srivastava is

present. However Shri Asit Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. Counsel

appearing for Union of India is not present.

List the case on 18.10.2016 for hearing in terms of earlier

order.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents shall ensure presence of

Shri Asit Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. Counsel on the next date of hearing

to argue the case.




O.A. No. 189 of 2010 M.A. No. 107 of 2012

Shiv Kumar Joshi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





17.10.2016



applicant and Shri Anand Vikram, Ld. Counsel for the


As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the parties, list the case on

30.11.2016 for hearing.



the Bench.


and list of events.




O.A. No. 153 of 2016 alongwith M.A. No. 2343 of 2016

Vrajesh Kumar Shankhdhar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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


M.A. No. 2343 of 2016

Counter affidavit filed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents

is taken on record. M.A. No. 2343 of 2016 is disposed of

accordingly.

O. A. No. 153 of 2016

Ld. Counsel for the applicant may file rejoinder within three

weeks.

List the case on 09.11.2016 for hearing.



the Bench.


and list of events.





Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





17.10.2016



and Shri Sunil Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted



further time is granted to file rejoinder affidavit.




the Bench.


and list of events.




O.A. No. 182 of 2016

Lt Col Manish Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





17.10.2016


Present : Col (Retd) Y.R. Sharma , Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents , assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC Legal Cell.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted

further four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.

Two weeks’ time is granted thereafter to Ld. Counsel for

the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit.




the Bench.


and list of events.




T.A. No. 116 of 2009

Safiuddin Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





17.10.2016


Present : Maj (Retd) R.D. Singh , Ld. Counsel for the



Maj (Retd) R.D. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

submits that petitioner Safiuddin has expired. He prays for

granting time to move appropriate application.

As prayed, list on 14.12.2016 for orders.




T.A. No. 37 of 2010

Ghanshyam Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





17.10.2016


Present : Shri S.P. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

and Shri V.P.S. Vats, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


Four weeks’ further time is granted to Ld. Counsel for the

respondents to file counter affidavit to the amended T.A..

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit





the Bench.


and list of events.




T.A. No. 156 of 2010

Babu Lal Yadav Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





17.10.2016


Present : Col (Retd) Y.R. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the



It has been stated by Col (Retd) Y.R. Sharma, Ld. Counsel

for the petitioner that he has withdrawn his Vakalatnama and

now Ld. Counsel Shri P.N. Chaturvedi is appearing for the

petitioner.




the Bench.


and list of events.

Name of Col (Retd). Y.R. Sharma shall not be shown in the

cause list and name of Shri P.N. Chaturvedi shall be shown in

the cause list as Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner.




T.A. No. 1194 of 2010

Sri Ram Singh Pradhan Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





17.10.2016


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







the Bench.


and list of events.





Smt. Vimla Devi Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





17.10.2016



petitioner and Mrs. Amrita Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel for the


M.A. No. 1967 of 2016

This is an application for recalling of order dated

04.07.2016.

Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant.

There appears to be no reason to recall the order dated

04.07.2016 and waive payment of cost. A conscious order was

passed.

Accordingly M.A. No. 1967 of 2016 is rejected.

T.A. No. 1207 of 2010




the Bench.


and list of events.




T.A. No. 82 of 2011

Ram Lakhan Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





17.10.2016


Present : None for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Saxena, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC

Legal Cell.


behalf of the petitioner to press this petition in second round after

pass over.

Shri Ashish Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the respondents

appeared and opposed the petition.

T.A. No 82 of 2011 is dismissed for non prosecution.

Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.




T.A. No. 17 of 2015

Trilok Dixit Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





17.10.2016


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

and Dr. Shesh Narain Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,






the Bench.


and list of events.


Form No. 4



EX.A. No. 210 of 2016 Inre O,A. No. 377 of 2012 Arvind Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant







applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Learned Counsel for the


Ex.A. No 210 of 2016.

This is an Application for execution of order of the Tribunal

rendered on 13.4.2016. On being asked why the order of the

Tribunal has not yet been complied with, learned counsel for the

respondents submits that the matter is in active process and it

shall take some more time.

As prayed, four weeks’ more time is granted to comply with

the order of the Tribunal.

List this case on 23.11.2016 on which status report shall

be filed for perusal of the Court..




M.A. No. 2324 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 21 of 2014 Gajay Kumar Suman Applicant






Present Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh for the Applicant and

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


M.A.No 2324 of 2016.

Present Application has been moved by learned counsel

for the respondents seeking clarification of the order of the

Tribunal dated 06.11.2015 to the effect that the respondent

authority be permitted to initiate fresh action against the

Applicant in accordance with Army Rules.

We have given our anxious consideration to the order and

we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal dated

06.11.2015 does not suffer from any ambiguity and it is crystal

clear. In our view, the clarification sought is misconceived and is

liable to be rejected.

The Application is accordingly rejected in terms of the

above.




M.A. No. 2328 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2329 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 109 of 2012

Raj Kumar Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri

V.P.S. Vats as counsel for the respondents is taken on

record. Let his name be shown in the list when the case

is next listed.

Present: None for the petitioner and Shri

V.P.S.Vats, Ld. Counsel for the respondents assisted by

Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

M.A.No 2328 of 2016

This is an Application under section 30 (1) of the

Armed Forces Tribunal Act moved by learned counsel for

the Applicant seeking leave to appeal vis-à-vis the order

of the Tribunal dated 27.01.2016. Learned counsel for

the respondents has vehemently opposed the

Application for condonation of delay attended with

submission that since there is huge delay, the Tribunal

lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay. In our

considered view, the argument is loaded with substance.

There is no appearance for the Applicant. We are

informed that learned counsel for the Applicant has

made an Application for adjournment of the case today.

According to the office report, the Application for

leave to Appeal has been moved after expiry of

statutory period, it being barred by seven months and

fourteen days. On this ground alone, the Application

deserves to be heard and disposed of today.

It is well settled that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction

to condone the delay for want of any enabling provisions

in the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Hence the

Application for condonation of delay is not maintainable

and is rejected.

M.A.No 2329 of 2016

Since Application for condonation of delay has been

rejected as not maintainable being barred by time, in

consequence, the Application for leave to appeal is also

rejected.




EX-A. No. 83 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2059 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 203 of 2014

Sub Ogar Ram Panwar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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

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


Learned counsel for the respondents has made a

statement across the bar that the order of the Tribunal has been

complied with and to prop up his statement, he has produced

copy of the order dated 15.10.2016. A copy of the order

aforesaid has been supplied to Shri K.K.Mishra, learned counsel

for the Applicant.

We have gone through the order.

Since order of the Tribunal has been complied with and

payment has also been made to the Applicant in observance of

the order of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the present

Execution Application is rendered infructuous and is accordingly

rejected as having become infructuous.

A copy of the order dated 15.10.2016 is also taken on

record for safe keeping.




M.A. No. 1598 of 2015 In re O.A. No. Nil of 2016 Chandra Singh Applicant






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

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

the respondents, assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC Legal

Cell.

M.A. No 1598 of 2015.

Present is an Application for condonation of delay in

filing the O.A. Nil of 2015.

The Application for condonation of delay has been

vehemently opposed submitting that the Applicant had

wilfully absented himself from duty and as a result he was

pronounced deserter.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Applicant

submits that it was not a case of deserting the unit but in fact

he had proceeded on leave on the ground of serious illness

of his wife which was duly granted. While on leave, it

transpired that his wife was suffering from cancer for which

she was being treated. Later-on, after prolonged ailment,

she died. He further submits that when the Applicant

reported for duty at the Unit, he was informed that he had

been declared deserter on 14.04.2009 and he was not

permitted to join duty.

Coming to merit of the case, learned counsel for the

Applicant submits that in view of the provisions contained in

section 39 (b), he ought to have been permitted to resume

duty and reason for overstaying the lave ought to have been

considered in view of the statutory provisions.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand

repudiated the submission submitting that after being

declared deserter there was no occasion for the Applicant

being permitted to resume duty.

In the instant case, the Applicant has already put in

more than 15 years of service. According to the Applicant he

had overstayed the leave and reported for duty at his unit

after 15 days but he was not permitted to resume duty.

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

the view that a case is made out for condonation of delay.

Accordingly, delay in filing the O.A is condoned.

O.A. No nil of 2015.

Keeping in view the factual matrix and pleadings on

record and subject to above discussion, the O.A is admitted.

Learned counsel for the respondents may file counter

affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any may be

filed within two weeks next thereafter.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and regard

being had that the Applicant had overstayed the leave and it

is not a case of wilfully deserting the Unit, it is provided as

an interim measure that the respondents shall permit the

Applicant to resume duty forthwith in his unit/Regimental

Centre in case he has not already been dismissed from

service. It is made clear that the Applicant shall report for

duty on 2nd Nov 2016.

It is also made clear that in case the order of dismissal

has already been passed, in that event, copy of order so

passed dismissing the Applicant from service shall be

provided to the Applicant.

It is further made clear that it would be open to the

respondents to proceed against the Applicant in accordance

with law after he is permitted to resume duty in his unit.

It is provided that in case dismissal order has already

been passed, it shall be open for the Applicant to submit

statutory complaint in accordance with law.

List this case on 2nd November 2016 for orders on

which date learned counsel for the respondents shall

produce the original record for perusal of the Bench.




M.A. No. 1280 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2288 of 2016

Sunil Kumar Thapa Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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




two weeks’ time to file reply.



Form No. 4



O.A. No. 244 of 2014 Balwant Singh Parihar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






Present : None for the applicant and Shri Bhanu Pratap

Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Soma

John, OIC Legal Cell.

This case was listed before the Circuit Bench which was to

sit at Nainital. Since sitting at Nainital has been postponed, this

case has come up before us.

Since there is no appearance for the Applicant, the case is

adjourned and is directed to be listed on 23.11.2016 for orders.




O.A. No. 178 of 2016 Kushal Yadav Applicant






Present: Shri Satendra Kumar Singh learned counsel for

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

the respondents assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC Legal Cell.

Shri Kushal Yadav, Applicant is present in court. The

precise case is that the Applicant had not made any application

for premature discharge from service and the Application and

signatures made thereon which has been acted upon leading to

his premature discharge are all fake and forged.

The statement made across the Bar by the Applicant is to

the effect that one JCO of One Training Battalion of B.E.G

Centre had made a demand of illegal gratification to the tune of

Rs 50,000/- after almost 20 days of his enrolment in the Army

and on his refusal to grease his palm, the order of voluntary

discharge was prepared behind his back acting upon the

Application which he had never made nor signed and

consequently he was discharged from Army service.

We have tallied the signatures made on the Application

with the signatures made by him on the O.A. The two signatures

are quite distinct and do not tally.

Let the entire original record be produced before us for

perusal on the next date of listing.

Looking to the nature of the case, we are of the view that

the matter be referred to the Chief of the Army Staff to look into

the matter and institute inquiry vis a vis the allegations of the

Applicant treating the present order as statutory complaint on

behalf of the Applicant. It is desirable that the inquiry may be

ordered to be taken to finality by the next date of listing of the

present case.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed

that the Applicant shall also file an affidavit by the next date of

listing making averments vis a vis the statement made before us

today in Court.

Besides the original record that shall be produced before

us for perusal, it is also directed that some responsible officer

from Recruitment Centre shall be sent alongwith the original

record of the Applicant for being produced before us for perusal.





R.A. No. 13 of 2013 Inre O.A. No. 233 of 2010 Ravi Pratap Pandey Applicant









List this case on 16.11.2016 on which date the office shall

submit report about sufficiency of service.


Form No. 4



T.A. No. 28 of 2016 Prayag Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner






Present :None for the petitioner and Dr. Shailendra

Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Col

Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

We are informed that an Application dated 18.08.2016 is

already on record which is to the effect that the petitioner does

not want to proceed with the T.A. and it be dismissed as

withdrawn.

In view of the above, the T.A is dismissed as withdrawn.




T.A. No. 1295 of 2010 with M.A. No. 1456 of 2016 Chandra Deo Ram Petitioner


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





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


Short question involved in this case is that the Applicant

has been discharged prematurely on completion of 24 years of

service while he ought to have been allowed to continue upto 28

years of service.

As prayed, list this case on 25.10.2016 for further hearing.




T.A. No. 1364 of 2010 Mohan Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





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



List the case on 21.11.2016 for further hearing.

On the next date of listing the respondents shall produce

the entire records including the decision/order passed with

regard to for physical promotion of the applicant dated

01.08.2000 on the rank of Subedar Major.




M.A. No. 537 of 2016 with R.A. No. 20 of 2016 & M.A. No. 2233 of 2016 Inre M.A. No. 1652 of 2014

Smt. Sagro Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






Present : Shri C.S. Rawat, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

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


List the case on 09.12.2016 for order/hearing.



the Bench.


and list of events.




M.A. No. 572 of 2016 Shiv Nath Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





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



Shri V.P. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for

and is granted further two weeks’ time to file reply to objection on

application for condonation of delay.





M. A. NO. 981 of 2016 with M.A. No. 982 of 2016 & M.A. No. 1821 of 2016 & M.A. No. 2332 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 983 of 2010

Ajit Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





Present :Shri Beer Prakash, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner



M. A. No. 1821 of 2016

Objection on application for condonation is taken on

record. M.A. No. 1821 of 2016 is disposed of.

M.A. No. 2332 of 2016

Reply to objection on application for condonation of delay

filed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. M.A.

No. 2332 of 2016 is disposed of.

M. A. No. 981 of 2016





M.A. No. 1295 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 299 of 2013 Surendra Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus The Commanding Officer, 38 Med Regt & Others Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




Present :Shri Rajat Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Mrs. Deepti P Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the respondents assisted


M.A. No. 1295 of 2016

Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ld. Counsel for the

respondents assisted by OIC Legal Cell and perused the records.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant intends to add certain new

grounds with regard to same relief which does not seem to change

the nature of application. Cause shown is sufficient. Accordingly M.A.

No. 1295 of 2016 is allowed.

Let amendment be carried out within a week.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant shall submit amended copy of the

O.A. within aforesaid period of one week. Ld. Counsel for the

respondents shall file counter affidavit to the amended O.A. within

four weeks’ thereafter. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed by Ld.

Counsel for the applicant within next two weeks.



produce original documents pertaining to the case for perusal of the

Bench.

Ld. Counsel for the parties may submit/exchange synopsis, and

list of events.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 1408 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2012 of 2016 Inre O.A. No.(Nil) of 2016

Brijesh Kumr Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






petitioner, and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the


Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted three

weeks’ further time to file replication to the objection on

application for condonation of delay.





M.A. No. 1777 of 2016 INRE O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Vinod Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus Rajput Regt Abhilekh Kayalay & ORs Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




Present : Shri Dilip Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

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


M.A. No. 1777 of 2016

This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring

the O.A. The delay as reported by the office is only of 15 days,

which does not seem to deliberate or intentional. Cause shown

is sufficient. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the parties we

condone the delay.

M.A. No. 1777 of 2016 is disposed of.

It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that

the applicant proceed on sanctioned leave on 30.09.2005 and

thereafter when he intended to resume duty he was not

permitted to do so but later on he has been discharged from

service without communicating any order of dismissal.

Admit.

Respondents shall file counter affidavit within six weeks.

Applicant shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder

affidavit.



Form No. 4



M.A. No. 1835 of 2016 Inre Dy No. 1834 of 2016 & M.A. No. 2333 of 2016

Arun Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






Present :Shri R.D. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and

Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by


M.A. No. 2333 of 2016

Objection on application for modification/recall of order is

taken on record. M.A. No. 2333 of 2016 is disposed of.

Dy No. 1834 of 2016

Replication may be filed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant

within two weeks.





M.A. No. 2296 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2297 of 2016 Inre O.A.(A) 239 of 2014

Union of India & Others Applicant-Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Applicant-respondents

Vs.

Chet Bahadur Khadka Respondent-applicant

By Legal Practitioner for the respondent-applicant




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


M.A. No. 2296 of 2016


application for grant of leave to appeal in O.A.(A) 239 of 2014.

Admittedly, the application is time barred and has been moved

beyond statutory period. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone

the delay under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. It is well

settled proposition of law that the Tribunal is not empowered to

condone delay in moving application for leave to appeal. Accordingly

application for condonation of delay in moving application for grant of

leave to appeal is not maintainable and is rejected.

M.A. No. 2297 of 2016

This is an application for grant of leave to appeal which has been

filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. Application for

condonation of delay has been rejected.

In consequence thereof, the application for leave to appeal is also

rejected.




O.A. No. 201 of 2010

Lal Mohar Mishra Applicant









Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

We have been informed that appeal against conviction by

the Sessions Court is still pending in the High Court. The High

Court has only suspended the sentence and not the conviction.

Hence there appears to be no reason to grant any interim relief.

List the appeal after disposal of the pending appeal with

the High Court.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant shall bring on record the

order of the High Court in the pending appeal so that the

controversy may be adjudicated upon keeping in view the final

outcome of the appeal pending in the High Court.

List on 24.02.2017 for orders awaiting the outcome of

pending appeal of the High Court.

Since the order of the Tribunal dated 17.07.2013 passed in

O.A. No 201 of 2010 has been recalled by the order of this

Tribunal dated 12.01.2016 the respondents are directed to

ensure status quo ante subject to final outcome of the O.A.


Form No. 4




Kumar Man Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





14.10.2016


Present : None for the applicant. Shri A.N. Tripathi, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh,

OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed by Ld. Counsel Shri Dilip Pandey, Ld. Counsel

holding brief for Shri Veer Raghav Chaubey, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant the case is adjourned.





O.A. No. 89 of 2015

Ashok Kumar Kushwaha Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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

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


As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant, two weeks’

further time is granted to file rejoinder affidavit.





O.A. No. 169 of 2015 Chanchal Kakoti Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






applicant and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the


We have heard the applicant as well as the respondent in

person.

The applicant has been transferred to Hissar, Haryana

wherein he has still to join and make request for allotment of

family quarter. The applicant shall be relieved on 03.11.2016.

Let the case be listed on 05.12.2016.

Keeping in view the fact that the parties may enter into

amicable settlement depending on availability of family quarter,

we request the respondents to provide family quarter to the

applicant at Hissar on preferential basis with communication to

this Tribunal. Applicant as well as respondent Mrs Punita Kakoti

are directed to appear in person before this Tribunal on next date

of listing. It is clarified that the proceedings of this Tribunal shall

be held in camera. We further provide that in case the applicant

applies for leave at the new duty station, the respondents shall

consider it sympathetically so that the applicant may appear

before the Tribunal on the next date.




O.A. No. 325 of 2015

Rakesh Kumar Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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

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


Ld. Counsel for the applicant intends to impugne

subsequent order passed by the competent authority while

rejecting his complaint. After hearing we allow the amendment

application. Let amendment be carried out within four weeks.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant shall provide amended copy

of the O.A. to Ld. Counsel for the respondents who may file

counter affidavit to the amended O.A. within within six weeks.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant may file rejoinder affidavit

within two weeks thereafter.






Hukum Chand Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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








O.A. No. 235 of 2016 Dheerandra Pal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present : Shri A.K. Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the



three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may

be filed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant within next two weeks.





T.A. No. 120 of 2009

B.G. Gowda Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus Commanding Officer 38 Med Regt Respondents





Present : Shri R.K. Agarwal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

and Dr. Shesh Narain Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,






the Bench.


and list of events.




T.A. No. 34 of 2010 with M.A. No. 547 of 2016 Vinay Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





Present : Shri S.P. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner



Two weeks’ and no more further time is granted to Ld.

Counsel for the respondents to file counter affidavit.

As prayed list the case on 04.11.2016 for further hearing.

On the date fixed, Ld. Counsel for the respondents shall produce

original documents pertaining to the case for perusal of the

Bench.


and list of events.





Shatrughan Singh Chauhan Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner








respondents and Shri Asit Chaturvedi, assisted by Maj Soma


Shri Asit Chaturvedi continued with the arguments.

Arguments could not be concluded.

List on 17.10.2016 for further hearing.

It is clarified that the case shall continue on day to day

basis.




O.A. No. 189 of 2010 M.A. No. 107 of 2012 Shiv Kumar Joshi. Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






applicant and Shri Anand Vikram, Ld. Counsel for the






the Bench.


and list of events.




O.A. No. 245 of 2015

Ajay Kumar Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






Present : Wg Cdr (Retd) A.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

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


We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties at length,

however the records are not available with the respondents.




the Bench.


and list of events.


Form No. 4



O.A. No. 160 of 2016 Ram Naresh Ram Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





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



As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents four weeks’

time is granted to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any,

may be filed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant within next two

weeks thereafter.




the Bench.


and list of events.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 2264 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2016 Parmar Rohit Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






Present : Shri Arun Srivastava, Ld Counsel for the

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


As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, four weeks


delay. Ld. Counsel for the applicant is granted two weeks’ time

to file replication.

List the case on 24.11.2016 for admission.




M.A. No. 1770 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. (Nil) of 2016 Amar Bahadur Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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

applicant and Shri Virendra Singh, Learned Counsel for the



further time is granted to file objection on application for

condonation of delay. Ld. Counsel for the applicant may file

replication within one week thereafter.





M.A. No. 2302 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2303 of 2016 Inre M.A. No. 1173 of 2015 with M.A. No.1356 of 2015 and

M.A. No. 1868 of 2015 Sandeep B.R. Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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


As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents four weeks’


delay. Replication may be filed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant






O.A. No. 113 of 2016 Surya Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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


respondents assisted by Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell.


further time is granted to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder

affidavit, if any, may be filed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

within two weeks thereafter.





T.A. No. 94 of 2016 Sunil Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus The Commanding Officer, 38 Med Regt & Others Respondents




13.10.2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member (A) Shri Yashovardhan Swaroop, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

has filed Vakalatnama which is taken on record. Memo of

appearance filed by Shri R.K.S. Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents is taken on record. Their names shall be shown in

the cause list.

Present :Shri Yashovardhan Swaroop, Ld. Counsel for the

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


List the case on 24.11.2016 for admission/hearing

alongwith T.A. No. 95 of 2016, O.A. No. 126 of 2012 and O.A.

No. 127 of 2012.



the Bench.


and list of events.


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

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2 T.A. No. 95 of 2016

Baljit Singh Petitioner





13.10.2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member (A) Shri Yashovardhan Swaroop, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

has filed Vakalatnama which is taken on record. Memo of

appearance filed by Shri Rajiv Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents is taken on record. Their names shall be shown in

the cause list.

Present :Shri Yashovardhan Swaroop, Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Rajiv Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the


List the case on 24.11.2016 for admission/hearing

alongwith T.A. No. 94 of 2016, O.A. No. 126 of 2012 and O.A.

No. 127 of 2012.



the Bench.


and list of events.


Form No. 4



Dy. No. 2520 of 2016 Rajbeer Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present : None for the applicant. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh,


OIC Legal Cell.

Ld. Counsel Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh holding brief for

Shri Rohit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that Shri

Rohit Kumar is out of station.





EX-A. No. 184 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 900 of 2010 Vikram Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner






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

petitioner and Mrs Deepti Prasad Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the


This is an application for execution of order of this Tribunal

dated 07.01.2016 passed in T. A. No. 900 of 2010.

Statement has been made by Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal

Cell that one vacancy has been released for the post of Soldier

Technical vide order dated 07.10.2016 passed by Integrated HQ

of MoD (Army), AG’s Branch/MP-3. Copy of the order has been

placed on record. It has been submitted that the petitioner shall

be called in the unit within a week and thereafter process of

change of trade shall start.

Keeping in view the statement given by OIC Legal Cell

(supra), we dispose of the execution application finally with the

hope and expectation that the entire process shall be completed

within a period of six weeks from today.

In terms of above, execution application is disposed of

finally.


Form No. 4



Ex-A. No. 191 of 2016 Inre M.A. No. 516 of 2016 Upendra Nath Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






Present: Shri Dwijendra Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the


It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondents

that the applicant has already submitted the documents for

compliance of order of this Tribunal. It is further stated that the

entire process shall be completed within one month.

Keeping in view the undertaking given by Ld. Counsel for

the respondents, we disposed of the Execution Application in

terms of the undertaking.


Form No. 4



Ex.A. No. 206 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 46 of 2013

Mukti Nath Rai Applicant







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


This is an application for execution of order dated

06.02.2013 passed in O.A. No. 46 of 2014.

Order of the Tribunal has not been complied with though it

was passed as far back as on 06.02.2013.

As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents list the case

on 24.10.2016 to enable the Ld. Counsel for the respondents to

received instructions as to why the order of this Tribunal (supra)

has not been complied with. We hope and trust that by the next

date of listing the order of this Tribunal shall be complied with

otherwise there would be no option with the Tribunal but to pass

punitive orders including saddling the respondents with

exemplary costs.





Ex Wing Cdr Ashwini Kumar Handa Applicant






Present :None for the applicant. Shri D.K. Pandey, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh,

OIC Legal Cell.

Ld. Counsel Shri Vikash Shukla holding brief for Shri S.S.

Rajawat, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that Shri S.S.

Rajawat is out of station.

As prayed, List the case on 05.1.2017 for orders.




O.A. No. 153 of 2016

Vrajesh Kumar Shankhdhar Applicant









Ld. Counsel for the respondents undertakes to file counter

affidavit within two days.





O.A. No. 201 of 2016 Renu Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant







applicant and Shri V.P.S. Vats, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, four weeks’

further time is granted to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit

may be filed within next two weeks.



Form No. 4




Krishan Lal Petitioner







petitioner and Shri Ashish Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the


Ld. Counsel for the respondents as well as OIC Legal Cell

wants to cite certain case laws.

As prayed by them, list the case on 15.11.2016 for hearing.



the Bench.


and list of events.





Shatrughan Singh Chauhan Petitioner









On request made on behalf of Ld. Counsel Shri Asish

Chaturvedi by Miss Appoli Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents, list the case on 14.10.2016 for hearing in terms of

earlier orders.




O.A. No. 123 of 2010 with M.A. No. 2232 of 2016 Durgawati Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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

Shri G.S. Sikarwar, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by



further time is granted to file objection to the response filed by

Ld. Counsel for the respondents.




the Bench.


and list of events.


Form No. 4




Smt Uma Patel & Ors Applicants

By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants Versus

Commanding Officer 38 Med Regt Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




Present : Shri Yashovardhan Swaroop, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the



24.11.2016 for hearing along with O.A.No. 127 of 2012, T.A. No.

94 of 2016 and T.A. No. 95 of 2016.



the Bench.


and list of events.





Gautam Kumar Applicant


Commanding Officer 38 Med Regt Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




Present : Shri Yashovardhan Swaroop, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the



24.11.2016 for hearing along with O.A. No. 126 of 2012, T.A. No.

94 of 2016 and T.A. No. 95 of 2016.



the Bench.


and list of events.




O.A. No. 278 of 2012

Hemendra Kumar Applicant






Present : Shri Bachchan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant. Maj Soma John, OIC Legal Cell for the respondents.





the Bench.


and list of events.




O.A. No. 244 of 2015 Sub Narendra Singh. Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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


OIC Legal Cell.

Ld. Counsel Sri V.A. Singh holding brief for Shri K.K.S.

Bisht, Ld. Counsel for the applicants states that Shri Bisht is out

of station and prays for adjournment of the case.

As prayed by him, list the case on 03.01.2017 for hearing.



the Bench.


and list of events.




O.A. No. 121 of 2016 along with M.A. No. 2318 of 2016

Ravi Papnai Applicant






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

and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondents

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

M.A. No. 2318 of 2016

Counter affidavit/reply affidavit filed by the respondents is

taken on record. M.A. No. 2318 of 2016 stands disposed of.

O.A. No. 121 of 2016 Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted three

weeks’ time to file rejoinder affidavit.




the Bench.


and list of events.


Form No. 4



O.A. No. 194 of 2016 alongwith M.A. No. 2319 of 2016 Ved Pal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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

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


M.A. No. 2319 of 2016

Counter affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on

record. M.A.No. 2319 of 2016 stands disposed of.

O.A. No. 194 of 2016


weeks’ time to file rejoinder affidavit.




the Bench.


and list of events.




T.A. No. 211 of 2009 Liladhar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






Present: None for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC

Legal Cell.

Applicant Liladhar present in person. He states that his Ld.

Counsel is out of station.

As prayed by him, list the case on 04.01.2017 for hearing.



the Bench.


and list of events




T.A. No. 1204 of 2010 alongwith T.A. No. 211 of 2009

T. Kishan Petitioner






Present : Shri Pradeep Chandola , Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the


As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, list the case on




the Bench.


and list of events.


Form No. 4



T.A. No. 75 of 2011

Ashok Kumar Petitioner









As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant list the case on




the Bench.


and list of events.




Court No. 2 T.A. No. 89 of 2012

Pirtu Lakra Petitioner






Present : None for the petitioner. Dr. Chet Narain Singh,


OIC Legal Cell.

Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Ld Counsel holding brief for

Shri Rohit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner states that Shri

Rohit Kumar is out of station and prays for adjournment of the

case.

As prayed, list the case on 05.01.2017 for hearing.



the Bench.


and list of events.




Court No. 2 T.A. No. 15 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1151 of 2016

Major Kunwar Ambreshwar Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





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



We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties at length and

perused the records.

List the case for hearing on 10.11.2016.



the Bench.


and list of events.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 2296 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2297 of 2016 Inre O.A. (A) No. 239 of 2014

Union of India & Others Applicant-respondents By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant- respondents

Versus Chet Bahadur Khadka Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent- Applicant

Notes of Orders of the Tribunal

the Registry

07.10.2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mateen, Member (J) Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A)

Present : Shri Amit Sharma, Ld Counsel for the Applicant-


This is an application for leave to appeal filed in the Bench

consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member ‘J’ and

Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member ‘A’.

List before Bench concerned on 14.10.2016 for orders.

(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice Abdul Mateen) Member (A) Member (J) gsr


ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2 (Cases taken in Court No. 1) M.A. No. 537 of 2016 with R.A. No 20 of 2016 & M.A. No. 2233 of 2016

In re M.A. No. 1652 of 2014 Smt. Sargo Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant



the Registry


Present : Shri C.S. Rawat, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

and Dr. Gyan Singh, Learned Counsel for the respondents,


This review application has been filed for review of order

dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr.

Justice S.C. Chaurasia, Member ‘J’ and Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil

Chopra, Member ‘A’.

List before appropriate Bench where Hon’ble Air Marshal

Anil Chopra is a Member on 14.10.2016 for orders.




M.A. No. 572 of 2016

Shiv Nath Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus



the Registry


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



Shri V.P. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for

and is granted further one week’s time to file reply to objection

on application for condonation delay.





M.A. No. 981 of 2016 with M.A. No. 982 of 2016 & M.A. No. 1821 of 2016 In re T.A. No. 983 of 2010

Ajit Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner



the Registry


Present : Shri Beer Prakash, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner



Shri Beer Prakash, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits

that he shall be filing reply to the objection on application for

condonation of delay during course of the day.

As prayed, list the case on 14.10.2016 before the

appropriate Bench having jurisdiction as per roster of that date.




M.A. No. 1835 of 2016 Inre Dy No. 1834 of 2016 Arun Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant



the Registry


Present : None for the applicant. Shri Shyam Singh, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Col Kamal Singh, OIC

Legal Cell.

On case being called out, no one appeared for the

applicant.




ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2 (Cases taken in Court No. 1) O.A. No. 153 of 2016

Vrajesh Kumar Shankhdhar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus Union of India & Others Respondent


Notes of the


Registry


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



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

prays for and as a matter of last opportunity, one week and no

more, further time is granted to file counter affidavit.





T.A. No. 68 of 2016 Sultan Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner



Notes of the


Registry


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

Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Col Kamal Singh,

OIC Legal Cell.

This case has come from Hon’ble High Court of Judicature

Allahabad and has been registered in this Tribunal as T.A. No.

63 of 2016. Notice was issued to the petitioner by the Registry

which has returned back unserved with the remark that the

petitioner has died.

As such this T.A. abates and is directed to be consigned to

record.




O.A. No. 123 of 2010 with M.A. No. 2232 of 2016 Durgawati Singh Applicant





07.10.2016

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mateen, Member (J) Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A)

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

Shri G.S. Sikarwar, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by

Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed, list this case on 13.10.2016 for hearing before

appropriate Bench having jurisdiction as per roaster of that date.




O.A. No. 278 of 2012 Hemendra Kumar Applicant





07.10.2016



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







T.A. No. 75 of 2011

Ashok Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner












Form No. 4




Major Kunwar Ambreshwar Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner






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

Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,







M.A. No. 661 of 2013 with M.A. No. 529 of 2016 & M.A. 651 of 2016

Vikas Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





07.10.2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A)







the Bench.


and list of events.

(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) gsr

Form No. 4



T.A. No. 16 of 2015 Kamal Singh Bhadoria Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





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

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


Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of

admission.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the

view that it is a fit case for admission.

Accordingly T.A is admitted.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is

granted four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder

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





M.A. No. 1867 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 133 of 2016

Ghanshyam Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant








It is informed that original record is not available today. The

argument advanced across the bar is based on genuineness of

charge-sheet and signatures contained thereon.

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


Needless to say, the original record shall be produced by

the learned counsel for the respondents on the date fixed for

perusal of the Bench.




O.A. No. 264 of 2013

Narender Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






Present : Applicant in person and Shri D.K. Pandey, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents ,assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC

Legal Cell.

Applicant who appears in person has sought adjournment

on the ground that his counsel is not available today.


to be listed on 22.11.2016 for hearing.




O.A. No. 325 of 2013

Surender Singh Yadav Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant







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


As prayed by learned counsel for the Applicant the case is

ordered to be listed on 27.10.2016.

Needless to say that the original record shall be produced

on the date fixed.





Prashantha Kumar P.G. Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






Present : None for the applicant and Mrs. Deepti Prasad

Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the respondents ,assisted by Maj Soma


Since counsel for the Applicant is not present, the case is

adjourned and is ordered to be listed on 18.11.2016 for hearing.





Ghanshyam Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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




for hearing.




O.A. No. 125 of 2013

Abhishek Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A)

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



As prayed, list this case on 08.11.2016 for further hearing.

(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) MH



M.A. No. 2284 of 2016 In re O.A. No. Nil of 2016 Rajesh Singh Yadav Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A) Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri Yogesh

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

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

Present: Shri Mohd Murtaza Hasan, Ld. Counsel for the

Applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the


This original application relates to the prayer that the

respondents be commanded to fix the band pay of the applicant

as per Army Instructions. As per office report there is a delay of

ten years, three months and one day in filing original application.

A copy of the same has been served upon the counsel for the

respondents on 4th October, 2016, who prays for and is granted

four weeks’ time to file objection.

List this case on 15.11.2016 for admission.

(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice Abdul Mateen) Member (A) Member (J) JPT



Court No. 2 (Cases taken in Court No. 1) EX-A. No. 203 of 2016 In re T.A. No. 39 of 2013

Selina John Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A)

Present: Maj (Retd) R.D. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner and Shri D.K. Pandey, Learned Counsel for the


This application has been filed by the applicant to the

effect that the judgment passed by this Tribunal dated

02.03.2016 despite giving sufficient time to comply it has not yet

been complied with. Copy of this application has been served

upon the learned counsel for the respondents on 03.10.2016.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents to seek instructions or file reply

showing cause as to why the aforesaid judgment has not been

complied with.

As prayed, list this case on 16.11.2016 for orders.




Court No. 2 (Cases taken in Court No. 1) M.A. No. 1686 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1844 of 2016

In re O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Virendra Pratap Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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


by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.


weeks’ time to file replication to the objection.





M.A. No. 1168 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1793 of 2016 In re O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Dinesh Chandra Kandpal Applicant





06.10.2016


Present: Shri N.K. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

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


M.A. No. 1793 of 2016

This is an application for objection to the application for

condonation of delay which is taken on record, copy of which has

been handed over to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant Shri N.K.

Mishra, in the Court, who prays for and is granted three weeks’

time to file replication to the objection.

M.A. No. 1793 of 2016 is disposed of accordingly.

O.A. No. Nil of 2016



Form No. 4



O.A. No. 14 of 2015 Lakhvir Singh Applicant





06.10.2016


Present: None for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents assisted by Maj Soma John, OIC

Legal Cell.

On case being called out in the revised list no one

appeared for the applicant nor there is any request to adjourn or

pass over the same .

Shri Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is

present.

The case is dismissed for non prosecution.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.


Form No. 4



O.A. No. 135 of 2015 with M.A. No. 1992 of 2016 Surendra Yadav Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: None for the applicant. Dr. Shailendra Sharma

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


A person appeared in the case, claiming himself to be Shri

Surendra Yadav, applicant, who stated that his counsel is out of

station today.

As prayed, list this case on 05.12.2016 for orders.





Arbind Kumar Dubey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri R.P. Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the



M.A. No. 2243 of 2016

Application for amendment filed by the learned counsel for

the applicant, is taken on record, copy of which has also been

served upon the Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 2243 of 2016 is disposed of accordingly.


two weeks’ time to file objection.





O.A. No. 310 of 2013 Piyoosh Kumar Singh Parmar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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


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



form no. 4 {see rule 11(1)} order sheet armed ...aftlko.up.nic.in/c1 daily order/c1 order...

Documents