form no. 4 [see rule 11(1)] order sheet armed …aftlko.up.nic.in/c2 daily order/c2 order-2017/c2...

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Case of Court No. 2 taken in Court No. 1

EX.-A. No. 149 of 2017

(Inre: O.A. No. 341 of 2012)

Smt Anju Sharma Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus

Union of India & Others Respondents

By Legal Practitioner for Respondents

Notes of the

Registry

Orders of the Tribunal

25.10.2017 Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A)

Present: Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the

applicant and Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the

respondents along with Maj Rajshri Nigam, Departmental

Representative.

EX.-A. No. 149 of 2017

This is an Execution Application under Section 29 of the Armed

Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 filed by the applicant for non

implementation of the judgment and order dated 22.09.2016 passed

in O.A. No. 341 of 2012 directing the respondents to issue necessary

PPO to the applicant and other dues within the stipulated time.

At the threshold of the arguments, a statement has been made

by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC, Legal Cell that in compliance of the order

of this Tribunal, necessary PPO has already been issued, a copy of

which has been provided to the learned counsel for the applicant

during course of hearing.

It is directed that the Bank concerned shall release the amount

to the applicant within one month from the date of its communication.

Subject to the above, this Execution Application is disposed of

accordingly.

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

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



M.A. No. 2517 of 2016

(Inre: O.A. No.470 of 2017)

Raj Kumar Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents

along with Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, Departmental Representative.

M.A. No. 2517 of 2016

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the

Original Application.

Heard.

The grounds shown in the affidavit filed in support of the

application seem to be genuine.

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

O.A. is hereby condoned.

Let the case be registered as O.A. No.470 of 2017.

Order (Oral)

Heard Shri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant,

Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and

perused the record and with their consent, this Original Application is

being disposed of at the admission stage.

The applicant was initially enrolled as Air Man in Air Force on

20.03.1979. He was dismissed from service in pursuance of the DCM

on Ist March 1983 with six months’ R.I. He preferred O.A. bearing

No.149 of 2010, that too was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order

dated 07th April 2015 holding that the O.A. was time barred and the

application for condonation of delay was rejected and in

consequence thereof, the O.A. was also dismissed by the aforesaid

order.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the applicant

preferred Writ Petition No.3238 (S/S) of 2015 (Raj Kumar Yadav vs.

Union of India & others). The writ petition was also dismissed as not

maintainable, in view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon &

others (2010 (8) SCC 110) and later on in the case of Union of India

& others vs. Major General Shri Kant Sharma & another (2015 (6)

SCC 773). While dismissing the writ petition, Hon’ble High Court

observed as under :

“Appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for opposite parties and the fact that the issue of maintainability of writ petition against the judgment and order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal has already been examined and decided in Writ Petition No.2200(SS) of 2015, vide order dated 22.05.2015, wherein it has been held that the writ petition against the judgment and order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal is not maintainable, the instant writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised.”

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant

that since the High Court had directed the applicant to prefer

statutory presentation and the applicant approached the appropriate

authority and that the petition has been dismissed vide order dated

18th April 2016, hence the present O.A. is maintainable.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has

vehemently argued that since the order passed by the Tribunal still

stands and it has not been modified by the appellate authority i.e.

Hon’ble Supreme Court, the observation made by Hon’ble High

Court, that too with rider that if so advised, the O.A. is not

maintainable. All actions taken against the jurisdiction is a nullity in

law.

We have considered the rival submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. There is no

dispute over the provision of law that the writ petition was not

maintainable in the Hon’ble High Court. While dismissing the writ

petition, the observation that the applicant may approach before the

appropriate authority, if so advised, does not mean that the advise

given beyond the statutory mandate confers jurisdiction to the

applicant to prefer statutory petition, that too under the teeth of the

order of the Tribunal dated 07th April 2015.

Since the basic foundation of the impugned order of the

statutory authority is bad in law, we feel that the present O.A. is not

maintainable. However, option is given to the applicant to approach

the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the impugned order, but so far as

the present case is concerned, it is barred by principle of res

juudicata. An issue (dismissal order), against which the petition has

already been dismissed, is not open to be raised by another petition.

It is well settled provision that a thing, which cannot be done directly,

cannot be done indirectly.

In view of above, we feel that the present O.A. is not

maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.


Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 60 of 2016 with M.A. Nos. 1717,2042,2419,2552 of 2016

and M.A. Nos. 347 and 702 of 2017

Lt Col Mukesh Baboo Applicant

In person

Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Lt Col Mukesh Baboo, applicant in person and Shri

Asheesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents along with

Maj Rajshri Nigam, Departmental Representative.

List this case on 31.10.2017 for orders before the appropriate

Bench.


Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 264 of 2017

Devendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri SS Rajawat, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the respondents along

with Maj Rajshri Nigam, Departmental Representative.

Counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the

respondents is taken on record. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be

filed within two weeks.

List this case on 01.12.2017 for orders.


Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A.(A). No. 239 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2089 of 2016

Shashi Mohan Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri KKS Bisht, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri RKS Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents along with


Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted

two weeks’ further time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if

any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List this case on 04.12.2017 for hearing.

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

chart of events


Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



T.A. No. 27 of 2017

Sandeep Kumar Petitioner

By Legal Practitioner for Petitioner

Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri Anoop Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the

respondents along with Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, Departmental

Representative.

Paper book has been provided to the learned counsel for the

respondents.

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

on 31.10.2017 for orders.


Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 120 of 2014

Jai Ram Yadav & Another Applicants

By Legal Practitioner for Applicants

Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri MS Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents along with

Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, Departmental Representative.

List this case on 24.11.2017 for further hearing before the

appropriate Bench.


chart of events.


Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET


Cases of Court No. 2 taken in Court No. 1

O.A. No 524 of 2012 alongwith O.A. No 168 of 2012 (Decided) with

M.A. No 2280 of 2016, M.A. No 2700 of 2016 & M.A. No 83 of 2017

Km Basanti Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus



Notes of the Registry



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

Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents along with Maj

Rajshri Nigam, Departmental Representative.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two

weeks’ further time to file supplementary counter affidavit.


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

original documents pertaining to case for perusal of the Bench.

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

Form No. 4




O.A. No. 56 of 2014

Smt Shyama Devi Applicant


Versus






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

Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents along with Maj Rajshri

Nigam, Departmental Representative.


weeks’ further time to file supplementary counter affidavit. Supplementary

rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by learned counsel for the applicant

within two weeks’, thereafter.



Form No. 4




O.A. No. 205 of 2014 with M.A. No 1801 of 2017

Kumar Man Singh Applicant


Versus






Present : Shri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri A.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents along

with Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, Departmental Representative.

M.A. No 1801 of 2017

Reply to supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the

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

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks’

time to file reply.



Form No. 4




O.A. No. 241 of 2015

Arjun Singh Applicant


Versus






Present : Shri J.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs.

Deepti Prasad Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents along with Maj


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

not prepared to argue the case today and prays for adjournment of the

case. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection. Accordingly,

the case is adjourned.





Form No. 4




O.A. No. 257 of 2016

Smt Bittan Devi Applicant


Versus






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

respondents is taken on record. Registry is directed to show his name as

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

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

Shyam Singh, learned counsel for the respondent assisted by Maj Rajshri

Nigam, Departmental Representative.


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

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



Form No. 4




O.A. No 284 of 2016 with M.A. No 1800 of 2017

Rajendra Prasad Singh Applicant


Versus






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

Dr. Shesh Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents along with

Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, Departmental Representative.

M.A. No 1800 of 2017

Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the respondents is taken

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

Learned counsel for the applicant has already filed Rejoinder affidavit.

Pleadings have been exchanged.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



M.A. No. 1763 of 2017 (Inre: O.A.(A). No. 290 of 2015)

Kaptan Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Advocate,

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

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

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

Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents along


M.A. No. 1763 of 2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the recall

application is sufficient.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the order dated

21.09.2017 passed by this Tribunal in O.A.(A) No.290 of 2015 is

hereby recalled, subject to payment of Rs.500/- as cost, which shall

be remitted to the Bar Association, AFT, Lucknow within a week.

Subject to deposit of cost, the case shall be restored to its

original number.


(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) PKG/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



M.A. No. 515 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1767 of 2016

(Inre: O.A. No. Nil of 2016)

Sharad Prakash Pal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri RKS Chauhan, learned counsel for the


Representative.

On account of the call given by the AFT Bar Association,

Lucknow, the Advocates are abstaining from judicial work.

Two weeks’ further time is granted to the learned counsel for the

applicant for filing supplementary rejoinder affidavit, which has not

been objected by the learned counsel for the respondents.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



M.A. No. 2090 of 2016

(Inre: O.A. No. 337 of 2011)

Smt Pyari Gurung Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Dr Gyan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents

along with Maj Rajshri Nigam, Departmental Representative.



Dr Gyan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has already

filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



M.A. No. 2636 of 2016

(Inre: O.A.(A). No. Nil of 2016)

Dinesh Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Dr Shesh Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the


Representative.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 141 of 2012

Smt Rekha Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the


Representative.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 116 of 2013

Karamati Iqbal Khan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the


Representative.

Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents

prays for and is granted four weeks’ further time to file counter

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

thereafter.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 134 of 2017

Shyam Babu Tiwari Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri VPS Vats, learned counsel for the respondents.



As prayed by Shri VPS Vats, learned counsel for the

respondents, four weeks’ further time is granted to file counter


thereafter.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 152 of 2017 with O.A. No. 417 of 2012(Decided)

Rajendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the


Representative.



As prayed by Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for

the respondents, four weeks’ further time is granted to file counter


thereafter.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 257 of 2017

Shobha Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Dr Shesh Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the


Representative.



As prayed by Dr Shesh Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the

respondents, four weeks’ further time is granted to file counter


thereafter.



Form No. 4




O.A. No. 331 of 2017

Sunita Yadav M/o Late Sigmn Subhash Kumar Yadav Applicant


Versus






Present : None for the applicant and Shri Rajiv Pandey, learned

counsel for the respondents along with Maj Rajshri Nigam, Departmental

Representative.


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

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



Form No. 4





Smt Minakshi Bisht Applicant


Versus






Present : None for the applicant and Dr Chet Narain Singh, learned


Representative.

On account of call given by the AFT Bar Association, Lucknow, the

Advocates are abstaining from judicial work.


In the mean time, learned counsel for the respondents may file

objection on amendment application.


Form No. 4




O.A. No. 118 of 2011

Aditya Nand Tiwari Applicant


Versus

Chief of Army Staff & Others Respondents





Present : None for the applicant and Shri Sunil Sharma, learned


Representative.







Form No. 4




O.A. No. 254 of 2014

TS Negi Applicant


Versus






Present : None for the applicant and Dr Chet Narain Singh, learned


Representative.







Form No. 4




O.A. No. 230 of 2016

Akhilesh Kumar Applicant


Versus






Present : None for the applicant and Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned


Representative.







Form No. 4





Inre O.A. No 254 of 2016

Rashid Ali Applicant


Versus






Present : None for the applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, learned


Representative.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four

weeks further time to file counter affidavit on behalf of remaining

respondents.

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

applicant within two weeks’, thereafter.



Form No. 4




O.A. No. 9 of 2017

Smt Radha Devi Applicant


Versus






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

learned counsel for the respondents along with Maj Rajshri Nigam,

Departmental Representative.




In the mean time, learned counsel for the applicant may file rejoinder

affidavit.


Form No. 4




T.A. No. 23 of 2016

Shyam Sunder Kumar Applicant


Versus






Present : None for the petitioner and Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal,









Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET




Munisha Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri AK Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Anurag Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents along with


Reply to the objection on the application for condonation of

delay filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

List this case on 13.11.2017 for disposal of application for

condonation of delay.


Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



M.A. No. 296 of 2017(Inre: O.A. No. Nil of 2017)

Smt Sunita Jaiswal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri Virat Anand Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the

respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one

week’s further time to file reply to the objection on the application for

condonation of delay.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



M.A. No. 1043 of 2016 (Inre : O.A. No. Nil of 2017)

Smt Krishna Thapa Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



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

Shri VPS Vats, learned counsel for the respondents along with Maj



two weeks’ further time to file objection on the application for

condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and

is granted one week’s time to file replication to the objection.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 61 of 2014

Sukhvir Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant

and Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents


Inspite of the order dated 19.09.2017, learned counsel for the

respondents has not filed the status report.


one week’s further time to file an affidavit taking into account the

earlier order passed by the Tribunal. The respondents shall produce

the original documents during the course of hearing.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 208 of 2014

Pravind Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri Shailedra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri DK Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents



one week’s further time to file supplementary counter affidavit in

terms of the earlier order dated 16.08.2017 passed by the Tribunal.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 147 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1273 of 2017

Smt Gomati Devi Mother of Late Sanjay Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry




applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents


A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Amit Jaiswal,

learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant should have

preferred Execution Application before the AFT, Principal Bench,

Delhi. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the

respondents is misconceived for the reasons that the Tribunal has

granted relief to the next of kith and kin of Late Sanjay Kumar and the

applicant is the mother of Late Sanjay Kumar and she is residing in

the present address. It was obligatory for the respondents to comply

with the judgment and order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the AFT,

Principal Bench, Delhi in O.A.No.450 of 2014. The letter dated 29th

May 2015 indicates that request has been made to the IHQ of MoD

for finalization of the matter with regard to payment of family pension.

It appears that the benefit has not been extended to the

applicant inspite of the fact that the respondents in the counter

affidavit have admitted that the case is under process.



chart of events.


Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 320 of 2017

Smt Saroj Tiwari Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry




applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the


Representative.


two weeks’ further time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit

may be filed within two weeks’ thereafter.



chart of events.


Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 324 of 2017

TD Kolekar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



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

Shri Kaushik Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondents along



four weeks’ further time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 335 of 2017

Tomy Barghese Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri Birendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Ashish Agnihotri, learned counsel for the


Representative.


two weeks’ further time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit


List this case peremptorily on 24.11.2017 for orders.

We are posting this case peremptorily for the reason that the

Promotion Board is likely to be scheduled in the month of December

2017.


Form No. 4




T.A. No. 38 of 2012

Subhash Chandra Singh Petitioner

By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus






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

Md. Zafar Khan, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri

Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

On call of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

does not intend to file Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit.





Form No. 4




T.A. No. 56 of 2016

Vinesh Kumar Petitioner


Versus






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

Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal

Cell.

None is available on behalf of petitioner. In the interest of justice, the

case is adjourned.



Form No. 4




O.A. No. 161 of 2016

Guddu Raja Ansari Applicant


Versus






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

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

Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

List this case before appropriate Bench on 31.10.2017 for further

hearing.




Form No. 4




M.A. No. 935 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 213 of 2010

Shriman Narayan Applicant


Versus






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

Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj


Cost has been deposited by learned counsel for the applicant in terms

of order dated 21.09.2017.





Form No. 4




M.A. No. 1338 of 2017 In re: T.A. No. 760 of 2010

Radhey Ram Petitioner


Versus






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



Cost has been deposited by learned counsel for the petitioner in terms

of order dated 18.09.2017.

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

17.11.2017 for hearing.




Form No. 4




O.A. No. 153 of 2016

Vrajesh Kumar Shankhdhar Applicant


Versus






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

Md. Zafar Khan, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri



further time to file reply to affidavit in terms of order dated 18.08.2017.





Form No. 4




O.A. (A) No. 241 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1499 of 2017

Ranjeet Kumar Applicant


Versus






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

Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri


M.A. No. 1499 of 2017



M.A. No. 1686 of 2017

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken



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





Form No. 4




T.A. No. 44 of 2016 with M.A. No 1766 of 2017

Sundra Singh Petitioner


Versus






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

Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj


M.A. No 1766 of 2017

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken







Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

O.A. No. 18 of 2014

Gokula Nand Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


13.10.2017 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J) Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A)

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

and Ms. Anju Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that she is not

prepared to argue the case today and prays for adjournment of

the case. Learned counsel for the applicant has no objection.

Accordingly, the case is adjourned.


On the date fixed , learned counsel for the respondents

shall produce original documents pertaining to case for perusal

of the Bench.

(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) ukt

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

O.A. No. 21 of 2015 with M.A. No. 1011 of 2017 & M.A. No. 1243 of 2017

Maj Saurabh Dutt Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: The applicant Maj Saurabh Dutt in person and Dr.

Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents.

In pursuance to our order dated 11.09.2017, learned counsel

for the respondents was directed to bring on record details of bank

account of Respondent No 6 from 2009 till date and also the

receipt of the FDR including the date on which it was opened and

encashed prematurely. Learned counsel for the respondents has

not furnished information as directed by the Court and today he is

asking adjournment of the case. Learned counsel for the

respondents could not satisfy the Court as to why so much time

has been taken to comply with directions of the Court.

The applicant has vehemently opposed the adjournment

stating that learned counsel for the respondents is avoiding to

furnish the details for a long time.

We hereby direct the learned counsel for the respondents to

furnish the details of bank account as ordered on 11.09.2017, by

the date fixed, failing which an adverse inference may drawn

against private respondent and the case shall be heard from the

prayer of grant of interim relief.

List this case on 06.11.2017 for hearing. On the date fixed, learned counsel for the respondents shall

produce original documents pertaining to the case for perusal of

the Bench.


Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

T.A. No. 531 of 2010

Sultan Ram Petitioner


Versus

Secy Govt of India & Others Respondents


Notes of the

Registry



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

petitioner and and Shri D.K. Pandey learned counsel for the

respondents and Maj Rajshri Nigam, Departmental

Representative.

As prayed learned counsel for the parties, list this case on


On the date fixed, learned counsel for the respondents

shall produce original documents pertaining to the case for

perusal of the Bench.

(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) SB

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

T.A. No. 107 of 2011

Lekh Raj Singh Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri Mohd Shariq Khan, Advocate holding brief of

Shri Yash Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and and

Mohd Zafar Khan, learned counsel for the respondents and Maj


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

submits that he does not intend to file supplementary rejoinder

affidavit.







Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

T.A. No. 87 of 2013

Mahindra Singh Bisht Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri Alam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner

and and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the


Representative.

Learned counsel for the applicant apologies and submits

that though he has amended the T.A. earlier but due to certain

misconception and mis-understanding, he in Court, had

restricted his prayer only for grant of disability pension. Today,

he requested the Court for challenging the discharge. Since

learned counsel for the applicant wants to press his prayer to

challenge the discharge therefore, in the interest of justice, we

recall our order dated 31.08.2017 to that extent only. Now the

T.A. shall be heard on his prayer of discharge only.


In this case, learned counsel for the respondents is

directed to confirm if the policy of 1988 was followed in letter

and sprit and an Inquiry as required was held before his

discharge as undesirable soldier, as also if Show Cause Notice

was issued.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

T.A. No. 74 of 2016

Smt. Kaushalya Devi Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri Vikash Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for

the petitioner and and Shri Anurag Mishra, learned counsel for

the respondents and Maj Rajshri Nigam, Departmental

Representative.

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

on 28.11.2017 for hearing.





Form No. 4



Court No. 2

M.A. No. 1720 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1721 of 2017,

In re: O.A. No. 79 of 2014

Smt. Harbhajan Kaur Applicant


Versus





13.10.2017 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J) Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A) Memo of appearance of filed today in Court by Shri Ashish Kumar

Singh, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel is taken on

record.

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

Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by

Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

M.A. No. 1720 of 2017.

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing application for

grant of leave to appeal in O.A. No. 79 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. 1721 of 2017

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 there of the application for leave to appeal is also

rejected.

(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) anb

Form No. 4



Court No. 2


In re: O.A. No. 33 of 2012

Sherpal Chahar Applicant


Versus






Memo of appearance of filed today in Court by Dr. Chet Narain

Singh, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel is taken on record.

Present : Shri Vinay Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Dr.

Chet Narain Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj


M.A. No. 1730 of 2017.



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. 1731 of 2017

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 there of the application for leave to appeal is also

rejected.


Form No. 4



Court No. 2

T.A. No. 7 of 2017

Cpl Sushil Kumar Petitioner


Versus





13.10.2017 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J) Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A) Memo of appearance of filed today in Court by Shri Kaushik

Chatterji, Ld. Counsel for Union of India is taken on record. His name shall

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

Present: Shri Kaushik Chatterji Ld. Counsel for the respondents,

assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

The present T.A. has been received by way of transfer from Hon’ble

Allahabad High Court.

Notice on behalf of respondents has been accepted by Shri Kaushik

Chatterji, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

Let fresh notice be issued by the Registry to the petitioner returnable

at an early date.

List the case on 01.12.2017 for orders.


Form No. 4



Court No. 2

Dy. No. 2360 of 2016 with M.A. No. 363 of 2017 & M.A. No 1749 of 2017

In re: O.A. No. 135 of 2014

Rajendra Pratap Singh Applicant


Versus






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

D.C. Lohumi, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri


M.A. No 1749 of 2017

Supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the

applicant in Court today is taken on record.

M.A. aforesaid stands disposed of accordingly.

O.A. No. 135 of 2014 It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that pleadings are

complete and the case is ripe for hearing.

List the case on 17.11.2017 for hearing.


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

Learned counsel for the parties shall submit synopsis/written

arguments and list of events.


Form No. 4



Court No. 2

Dy. No. 1572 of 2017, M.A. No. 1751 of 2017 & M.A.No. 1752 of 2017

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

Ravinder Singh Applicant


Versus






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

Kaushik Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj


M.A. No. 1752 of 2017

Objection file by learned counsel for the respondents on application

for amendement of the O.A. is taken on record.

M.A. aforesaid stands disposed of accordingly.

M.A. No. 1751 of 2017

This is an application for amendment of the O.A. moved by the

applicant. By means of this application, the applicant intends to add two

new prayers in the prayer clause of the O.A. It is submitted that the

applicant originally had made prayer for a direction to the respondents to

decide the statutory petition of the applicant, but now by means of this

application, the applicant also wants to challenge the District Court Martial

proceedings.

Application is allowed. The applicant is directed to amend the O.A.

within two weeks.

O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Learned counsel for the respondents may file objection to the

application for bail within the aforesaid period of two weeks.



Form No. 4



Court No. 2

M.A. No. 1974 of 2015 in re: O.A. No. NIL of 2017

Smt. Brijesh Balyan Applicant


Versus






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

Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj


Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary

objection regarding maintainability of the O.A. on the ground that personnel

of Coast Guard are not governed by the Navy Act. However, no documents

have been furnished in support of the objection raised.

Further time is prayed for to bring on record the relevant documents.


By the next date, learned counsel for the respondents shall bring on

record documents in support of the objection raised. It is further directed

that a responsible officer of the Navy shall also remain present on next date

of listing to assist the Tribunal.

Copy of the order be supplied to learned counsel for the respondents

free of cost.


Form No. 4



Court No. 2

M.A. No. 863 of 2017 & M.A. No. 1750 of 2017


Jitendra Singh Applicant


Versus






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

Shri Virendra Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj


M.A. No 1750 of 2017

Objection on application for condonation of delay filed by learned

counsel for the respondents in Court today is taken on record.

M.A. aforesaid stands disposed of.

O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four

weeks’ time to file replication.



Form No. 4



Court No. 2

M.A. No. 989 of 2017, M.A. No. 1753 of 2017 & M.A. No. 1754 of 2017


Lal Singh Applicant


Versus






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



M.A. No. 1753 of 2017

Objection on application for condonation of delay filed by learned

counsel for the respondents in Court today is taken on record.


M.A. No. 1754 of 2017

Replication to objection on application for condonation of delay filed

by learned counsel for the applicant in Court today is taken on record.


O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Learned counsel for the applicant prays for short time to file better

affidavit in support of his application for condonation of delay.



Form No. 4



Court No. 2

O.A. No. 93 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1675 of 2016, M.A. No. 2401 of 2016 & M.A. No. 399 of 2017

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Applicant


Versus






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

Virendra Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj


By means of order dated 21.09.2017, the applicant was granted time

to file rejoinder affidavit. Today again a request has been made by learned

counsel for the applicant for granting further time to file rejoinder affidavit.

In the interest of justice, two weeks further time is granted to learned

counsel for the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit.



Form No. 4



Court No. 2

O.A. No. 95 of 2017

Gaganjot Kaur Applicant


Versus






Present :None for the applicant. Shri Sunil Sharma, Ld. Counsel for

the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

It is informed at Bar that Maj (Retd) R.D.Singh is unable to attend

Court today.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he shall file

counter affidavit on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 since other

respondents, i.e. respondents No. 5 to 8 have been arrayed in personal

capacity.

In pursuance of order dated 20.03.2017, notice was issued to

respondent No. 5 in exclusion to respondents No. 6 to 8.

As per office report dated 18.05.2017 notice was issued to

respondent No. 5. Neither the served notice nor acknowledgement has

been received, as such, in view of A.F.T. (Practice) Rules, service on

respondent No. 5 is deemed sufficient and the case shall proceed against

said respondent ex parte.

List the case on 17.11.2017 for further orders.


Form No. 4



Court No. 2

O.A. No. 311 of 2017

Smt Alka Mishra Applicant

W/O Vimal Kumar Mishra


Versus






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

Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj


Learned counsel for the applicant prays for short adjournment to

enable him to file application for bail. He may do so within two weeks.



Form No. 4



Court No. 2

O.A. No. 313 of 2017

Smt. Mithilesh Applicant


Versus






Present : Shri Alam Singh, Advocate, holding brief for Shri S.S.L.

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

Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal

Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents is granted four weeks’ further

time to file counter affidavit.

Applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within next two weeks.



Form No. 4



Court No. 2

T.A. No. 42 of 2016

Smt. Savitri Devi Petitioner


Versus






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

Shri Virendra Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj



weeks’ further time to file reply to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed

by the learned counsel for the petitioner.



Form No. 4



Court No. 2

T.A. No. 77 of 2016

Ashok Kumar Petitioner


Versus






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

Shesh Narain Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj


Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two

weeks further time to file rejoinder affidavit.



Form No. 4



Court No. 2

M.A. No. 1756 of 2017 in re: T.A. No. 9 of 2017

Smt. Sharda Devi Petitioner


Versus






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

Kaushik Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Wg Cdr

Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

M.A. No. 1756 of 2017

Impleadment application has been filed by mother of the deceased

soldier claiming division of family pension. Thus, she is a necessary party.

The application is accordingly allowed.

Necessary amendment may be incorporated by learned counsel for

the petitioner in the array of parties within ten days.

He shall also take steps within the aforesaid period for service of

notice on the newly impleaded respondent. Office shall issue notice to the

newly impleaded respondent immediately after receipt of steps.



Form No. 4



Court No. 2

M.A. No. 816 of 2017 In re: T.A. No. 6 of 2013

Zamir Ahmed Petitioner


Versus






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

assisted by Shri V.A.Singh & Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh Chauhan, and Shri

Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj


Photo copy of receipt with regard to deposition of cost of Rs.500/-

has been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that he

shall submit the original receipt in office by the next date of listing.

Pleadings are complete.

List the petition on 24.11.2017 for hearing.


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

Learned counsel for the parties shall submit synopsis/written

arguments and list of events.


Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

T.A. No. 39 of 2017

Govind Singh Negi Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Mohd Shariq Khan, Advocate holding brief of Shri

S.G. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and and Shri

V.P.S. Vats, learned counsel for the respondents and Maj


Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time for better

preparation of the case. As prayed, the case is adjourned.

List this case on 27.11.2017 for hearing. On the date fixed, learned counsel for the respondents




Form No. 4



Court No. 2

O.A. No. 49 of 2010

Asha Devi & Others Applicants

By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants

Versus






O.A. No. 49 of 2010, Asha Devi & Others vs. Union of India and

others is dismissed.

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

(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) RPM/-

Form No. 4



Court No. 2

M.A. No. 1671 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Anupama Mishra Applicant


Versus

Managing Director AGI & Others Respondents





Present : Shri Virendra Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

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

by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

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

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



Court No. 2

M.A. No. 986 of 2013

Smt. Meera Devi Applicant


Versus






Present : Shri OP Kushwaha, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ashok

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

for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

It appears from a perusal of the record that application for

condonation of delay in filing the counter affidavit was filed by the Ld.

Counsel for the respondents. Delay is condoned and counter affidavit is

taken on record.

M.A. No. 986 of 2013

The applicant has approached this Tribunal for grant of liberalised

family pension with delay of 19 years, 10 months and 26 days. Matters

relating to liberalised family pension inhibit recurring cause of action.

Delay is accordingly condoned. Let O.A. be registered.

Admit.

Rejoinder affidavit has already been filed.


Respondents shall produce original record on the next date of

listing. Parties shall also file compilation of case law and chart of events.


Form No. 4



Court No. 2

EX-A. No. 68 of 2017 In re: M.A. No. 2265 of 2016

Akhila Nand Pandey Applicant


Versus






Present : Mohd Shariq Khan, Advocate, holding brief of Shri S.G.

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


Learned counsel for the respondents prays for further time to

comply with the order of the Tribunal.

As prayed, six weeks’ further time is granted to Ld. Counsel for the

respondents to comply with the order and file compliance report failing

which the respondents shall deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- in this Tribunal.



Form No. 4



Court No. 2

O.A. No. 264 of 2015

Natha Yadav Applicant


Versus






Present : Mohd Shariq Khan, Advocate, holding brief of Shri S.G.

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


It is informed at Bar that Shri S.G. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

is unable to attend the Tribunal today and adjournment is prayed for to file

rejoinder affidavit.


Meanwhile rejoinder affidavit may be filed by the Ld. Counsel for the

applicant.

Respondents shall produce original record on the next date of listing.

Parties shall also file compilation of case law and chart of events.


Form No. 4



Court No. 2

T.A. No. 9 of 2017

Smt. Sharda Devi Petitioner


Versus






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

Kaushik Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Wg Cdr

Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

It transpires from a perusal of the record that application for

condonation of delay was filed by the respondents in the Hon’ble High

Court bearing No 33086 of 2008 for condoning delay in filing the counter

affidavit.

With the consent of Ld. Counsel for the parties, delay in filing counter

affidavit is condoned and counter affidavit is taken on record.

Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner.

Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties, we find it a fit case for

admission.

Admit.

List the case on 13.10.2017 for hearing on application for

impleadment/TA.


Form No. 4



Court No. 2

T.A. No. 15 of 2017 & M.A. No. 1740 of 2017

Bhupendra Singh Bhadauria Petitioner


Versus






Present : Col Y.R. Sharma (Retd), Advocate holding brief for Maj

R.D. Singh (Retd), Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Appoli

Shrivastava, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri


It is informed at Bar that Maj R.D. Singh (Retd), Ld. Counsel for the

petitioner is ill and is also out of station. Accordingly, adjournment is prayed

for on his behalf.

M.A. No. 1740 of 2017

Objection on bail application filed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents

in Court today is taken on record.


On the next date of listing, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner shall

provide copy of the amended T.A. to Ld. Counsel for the respondents as

directed in our earlier order dated 05.10.2017.


Form No. 4



Court No. 2

T.A. No. 18 of 2016

Balram Singh Petitioner


Versus






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

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


Ld. Counsel for the petitioner states that he shall serve copy of the

written arguments on Ld. Counsel for the respondents during course of the

day.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents may file reply to the written

arguments by the next date of listing.

List the case on 31.10.2017 for further hearing.




Form No. 4



Court No. 2

O.A. No. 164 of 2013

Warrant Officer Shashi Kant Chaturvedi Applicant


Versus






Present : Col R.C.Dixit (Retd), Advocate holding brief for Shri P.N.

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

Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal

Cell.

It is informed at Bar that Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant is out of station and prayer for adjournment has been made on his

behalf.

The case is according passed over for the day.

List again on 13.11.2017 for hearing.




Form No. 4



Court No. 2

T.A. No. 41 of 2016

Smt. Shakuntla Devi Petitioner


Versus






Present : Shri Y.R. Sharma , Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Shri

Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri


Adjournment is prayed for by Ld. Counsel for the applicant.

The case is accordingly adjourned.




(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) ANB

Form No. 4



Court No. 2

T.A. No. 75 of 2016

Rajesh Kumar Petitioner


Versus






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

S.N. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri


Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while preparing the

case, it has come to his notice that rejoinder affidavit has not been filed by

the petitioner before Hon’ble High Court. He prays for short time to file

rejoinder affidavit.


Meanwhile, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit.

(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) ANB

Form No. 4



Court No. 2

T.A. No. 42 of 2017

Col Mukul Singhal Petitioner


Versus






Present : Shri Mohan Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Dr.

Chet Narain Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj


Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and, as a matter of last

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





Form No. 4



Court No. 2



Harishanker Dwivedi Applicant


Versus






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

Shesh Narain Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj



time to produce case law on the point of maintainability of the case.


(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) Ukt/-

Form No. 4



Court No. 2


Smt. Laxmi Devi Applicant


Versus






Present: Shri S.K. Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Shri PN

Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Shailendra Sharma

Atal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC

Legal Cell.

Shri S.K. Singh, Advocate, submits that Shri PN Chaturvedi, learned

counsel for the applicant is out of station today and prays for adjournment

of the case. Accordingly, the case is adjourned.



Form No. 4



Court No. 2

O.A. No. 248 of 2015 alongwith T.A. No. 121 of 2011 (Decided)

Smt. Malti Devi Petitioner


Versus





12.10.2017 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J) Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A) Present: Shri Parijaat Belaura, Advocate, holding brief of Shri V.K.

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

for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

Shri Parijaat Belaura, Advocate, prays for and is granted two weeks’

further time to file supplementary rejoinder affidavit.





Form No. 4



Court No. 2


Jagirman Rai Applicant


Versus






Present: Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri

VPS Vats, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam,

OIC Legal Cell.

M.A. No 1755 of 2017



On perusal of record, it transpires that application for condonation of

delay has not been filed by learned counsel for the applicant alongwith

Original Application. He prays for and is granted two weeks’ time to move

application for condonation of delay.



Form No. 4



Court No. 2


Ramesh Chandra Dixit Applicant


Versus






Present : Applicant Shri Ramesh Chandra Dixit in person and Dr.



Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted three

weeks’ time for better preparation of the case and to amend prayer clause

of the Original Application.



Form No. 4



Case listed in Court No. 2 taken up in Court No. 1


In re: O.A. No. 183 of 2016

Union of India & Others Applicants- Respondents

By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants- Respondent

Versus

Smt. Bhagwan Devi Respondent-Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicants



11.10.2017 Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal B.B.P. Sinha, Member (A)

Present: Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants-

Respondent assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

M.A. No. 1679 of 2017



is time barred and has been moved beyond the 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 the delay in moving application 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. 1680 of 2017

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, application for leave to appeal is also

rejected.

(Air Marshal B.B.P. Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) ukt/-

Form No. 4





Vikas Pandey Applicant


Versus






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

Dr. Shaialendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents assisted

by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

Reply to objection on application for condonation of delay filed by

Ld. Counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

The applicant has impugned order dated 30.09.2011 with regard to

discharge from Air Force service. Against the impugned order of

discharge, the applicant preferred the present application on 18.04.2013

with delay of one year and seven days.

Submission of Ld. Counsel for the applicant is that on account of

financial problems and certain unavoidable circumstances, the applicant

could not approach the Tribunal within six months’ time as required under

the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

The cause show is sufficient. Delay is accordingly condoned. Let

the case is registered as O.A.

The issue involved requires hearing.

Admit.

Counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within four weeks.

Applicant shall have two weeks’ thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.



Form No. 4





In re: O.A. No. 203 of 2013

Pushkar Singh Applicant


Versus






Present: Shri Ravi Prakash Tripathi, holding brief of Shri V.A. Singh,

learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R.K. S. Chauhan, learned

counsel for the respondents assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

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

allowed four weeks’ further time to file objection on application for

condonation of delay in filing recall application.

Replication may be filed by the applicant within next two weeks.



Form No. 4





Sandeep Kumar Applicant


Versus

Union of India & Others Respondent

By Legal Practitioner for Respondent




Present: Applicant Sandeep Kumar in person. Shri Kaushik Chaterjee,

learned counsel for the respondents assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC

Legal Cell.


weeks’ further time to file objection on application for condonation of delay.

Replication may be filed by learned counsel for the applicant within

next two weeks.



Form No. 4




O.A. No. 213 of 2016

Suresh Singh Chauhan Applicant


Versus






Present: None for the applicant. Shri Kaushik Chaterjee, learned counsel for the respondents assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

List revised. None is present on behalf of the applicant to press the Original Application in second round after pass over.

Shri Kaushik Chaterjee, learned counsel for the respondents is present.

The Original Application is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.

Interim order, if any, is hereby discharged. (Air Marshal B.B.P. Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) ukt/-

Form No. 4




O.A. No. 251 of 2016

Smt. Kanta Devi Applicant


Versus






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

learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, learned

counsel for the respondents assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

Supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on

record.

Supplementary rejoinder affidavit may be filed by learned counsel for

the applicant within two weeks.



original record pertaining to case for perusal of the Bench.


Form No. 4




O.A. No. 274 of 2017

Sahamatul Nisha Applicant


Versus






Present: Shri Ram Dheeraj Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.

Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell for the respondents.

As prayed by OIC Legal Cell, four weeks’ further time is granted to file

counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed by learned counsel for the

applicant within two weeks thereafter.



Form No. 4




O.A. No. 524 of 2012 Alongwith O.A. No. 168 of 2012 (Decided) with M.A. No. 2280 of 2016, M.A. No. 2700 of 2016 & M.A. No. 83 of 2017

Km Basanti Applicant


Versus






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

Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

The case stands released.

List before Court No. 2 on 25.10.2017 for hearing.




Form No. 4




O.A. No. 118 of 2011

Aditya Nand Tiwari Applicant


Versus

Chief of Army Staff & Others Respondent





Present: Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell for the respondents.

Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents is reported to be out of station. As prayed, list the case on 24.10.2017 for hearing. On the date fixed, learned counsel for the respondents shall produce original documents pertaining to case for perusal of the Bench. (Air Marshal B.B.P. Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) ukt/-

Form No. 4




O.A. No. 385 of 2011

Sharma Naresh Kumar Applicant


Versus






Present: None for the applicant. Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for

the respondents assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

Shri V.A. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant is reported to be

out of station.

The case is accordingly passed over for the day.




(Air Marshal B.B.P. Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) Ukt/-

Form No. 4




O.A. No. 94 of 2016

Abdul Hameed Applicant


Versus






Present: None for the applicant. Shri Virendra Singh, learned counsel

for the respondents assisted by Maj Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell.

In spite of notice sent by the Registry, none appears to press the

case.

Shri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents is present.

The case is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.

Interim order, if any, stands discharged.


Form No. 4




O.A(A) No. 241 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1499 of 2017

Ranjeet Kumar Applicant


Versus

Chief of Army Staff & Others Respondent





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

Rajshri Nigam, OIC Legal Cell for the respondents.

OIC Legal Cell informs that Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for

the respondents is not available and prayed for adjournment of the case.

The case is accordingly adjourned.





Form No. 4




T.A. No. 515 of 2010

Shyam Sunder Petitioner


Versus






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

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two

weeks’ further time to file rejoinder affidavit.




(Air Marshal B.B.P. Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) Ukt/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET

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

M.A. No 828 of 2017 Inre O.A. (Nil) of 2017

Smt Shyamal Sri Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

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

Notes of Registry Order of the Tribunal

10.10.2017

The Court will not assemble today due

to holding Circuit Bench at Nainital.

List on 02.11.2017 for orders.

I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No 195 of 2015

Narendra Kumar Rai Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



10.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No 101 of 2016

Smt Madhubala Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus

Union of India & Others Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents


10.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No 105 of 2016 with M.A No 1216 of 2017

Lt Col Rajeev Bhola Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus



10.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No 31 of 2017 with M.A. No 722 of 2017

Mange Ram Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



10.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


T.A. No 17 of 2010

Smt Suman Devi & Others Applicants By Legal Practitioner for Applicants



10.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


T.A. No 28 of 2017

Smt Rajesh Tyagi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



10.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No 301 of 2012

Padam Bahadur Gurung & Others Applicants By Legal Practitioner for Applicants

Versus



10.10.2017



List on 02.11.2017 for hearing.

I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 106 of 2013

Mahabir Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



10.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 285 of 2013

Smt Sunita Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



10.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No 1788 of 2016 with M.A. No 1163 of 2016

AK Das Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No 1789 of 2016

Arvind Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No 2668 of 2016 Inre O.A. No 219 of 2014

Chandrabhan Singh & Another Applicants By Legal Practitioner for Applicants



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A No 769 of 2017 Inre O.A. (Nil) of 2017

Smt Mohika Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



Dhananjay Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



Smt Sanjogi Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


M.A. No 1201 of 2017 with MA. No 1202 of 2017

Inre T.A. No 775 of 2010

RN Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



Smt Prabhawati Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 172 of 2014 with M.A. No 703 of 2015 & M.A. No 704 of 2015

Smt Chandra Kali Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 75 of 2015

Ravi Singh Thakur Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



Smt Priyanka Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET



Rakesh Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 307 of 2017

Smt Maya Thapa Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

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


09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 381 of 2017

Smt Kamil Nisa Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


T.A. No. 16 of 2015

Kamal Singh Bhadoria Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


T.A. No. 80 of 2016

Anoop Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 253 of 2012

Krishna Kumar Thakur Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

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


09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 355 of 2015

Smt Rama Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 301 of 2016

Smt Radha Devi W/o Late Sub Pratap Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. (A) 128 of 2017 With M.A. No 244 of 2016

Suraj Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant



09.10.2017




I/C Registrar

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

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2 M.A. No. 686 of 2017 (Inre: O.A. No. Nil of 2017)

Mithlesh Devi alias Lali Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant


Notes of the

Registry


06.10.2017 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S Rathore, Member (J) Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A)

List has been revised.

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

Shri Ashish Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents along with


M.A. No. 1685 of 2017

Reply to objection on delay condonation application filed by

learned counsel for the applicant in Court, today is taken on record.

We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the

application as well as reply to the objection for condonation of delay

in filing the original application.

It appears that there was no intentional and deliberate delay on

the part of the applicant challenging the impugned orders.

Accordingly, the cause shown seems to be sufficient. The application

for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the Original

Application is hereby condoned.

Objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is

hereby rejected.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that

it is a fit case for admission.

Admit.

Let the case be registered as O.A.


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

may be filed within two weeks’, thereafter.


(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice S.V.S Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) RPM/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

O.A. No. 258 of 2016

Smt Asha Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry




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

Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri

Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents along


Dr Ashish Asthana, Advocate, submits that Shri Shailendra

Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has not come to the

Court since he is out of station and he prays for adjournment of the

case.

Accordingly, the case is adjourned. In the meantime learned

counsel for the applicant shall file rejoinder affidavit.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

O.A. No. 94 of 2017

Smt Sanju Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry




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

Shri Rajiv Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents along with




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

week’, thereafter.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

O.A. No. 355 of 2017

Pratap Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry




Present: Shri Prabhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the

applicant and Dr Gyan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents




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

week’, thereafter.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

O.A. No. 255 of 2015

Kishan Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Col Ashok Kumar(Retd), learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Kaushik Chatterji, learned counsel for the


Representative.

Learned counsel for the respondent is hereby directed to

produce the necessay documents, as asked by this Court, by means

of an affidavit by next date.

List this case on 08.11.2017 for further hearing.

On the date fixed, learned counsel for the respondents shall

produce original documents pertaining to the case for perusal of the

Bench.


Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2


Krishna Nand Rai Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri R Chandra, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Yash

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



M.A. No. 1353 of 2017

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is

taken on record. M.A. No. 1353 of 2017 stands disposed of.

It is informed at the Bar that Shri Yashpal Singh, learned

counsel for the applicant is out of station. Therefore, in the interest of

justice, the case is adjourned for the day.


On the date fixed, learned counsel for the respondents shall

produce original documents pertaining to the case for perusal of the

Bench.


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

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2 M.A. No. 1678 of 2017 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Smt. Vinita Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Applicant


Notes of the

Registry



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

and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the


Representative.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is

granted two weeks’ time to file objection on the application for

condonation of delay. Replication, if any, may be filed by

learned counsel for the applicant within two weeks, thereafter.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

M.A. No. 1676 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1677 of 2017 Inre T.A. No. 174 of 2010

Radhey Shyam Yadav Petitioner


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner and and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel

for the respondents and Maj Rajshri Nigam, Departmental

Representative.


granted two weeks’ time to file objection on the application for

condonation of delay. Replication, if any, may be filed by

learned counsel for the applicant within two weeks, thereafter.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

M.A. No. 339 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1222 of 2016 & M.A. No. 714 of 2017

Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Rati Bhan Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



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

applicant and Shri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the

respondents.

M.A. No. 1689 of 2017

Better affidavit in support of application for condonation of

delay, filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on

record.


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



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

M.A. No. 28 of 2017 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Jai Bihari Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



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

applicant and Dr. Chet Narain Singh, learned counsel for the

respondents.

Vide order dated 18.08.2017, learned counsel for the

applicant was directed to bring on record postal receipts of

application sent by him to concerned authorities for providing

copy of GCM proceedings.

M.A. No. 1690 of 2017

Affidavit with regard to production of postal receipts, filed by

learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is taken on

record.

This original application has been filed by the appellant after

a lapse of about 29 years. By means of this application, the

appellant has made prayer to direct the respondents to furnish a

copy of GCM proceedings held for the trial of the appellant

under Army Act Section 69 under which appellant was awarded

punishment of “rigorous imprisonment and to be dismissed from

service on 15.07.1988”.

Keeping in view the prayer of the appellant, we direct the

learned counsel for the respondents to provide copy of GCM

proceedings of the year 1988, if held with them otherwise file an

affidavit regarding weeding out of the documents.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

M.A. No. 362 of 2017 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Smt. Janki Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri K.K. Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Kaushik Chatterjee, learned counsel for the

respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted

two weeks’ further time to file replication to objection on

application for condonation of delay.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 2

M.A. No 458 of 2017 with M.A. No. 741 of 2017 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Santosh Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry



Present: Shri J.N. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the

respondents.

M.A. No. 1688 of 2017

Replication to objection on application for condonation of

delay, filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on

record.

M.A. No 458 of 2017

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the

original application. As per office report, there is delay of 01

year, 06 months and 06 days in filing the original application.

The reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the

application for condonation of delay seem to be genuine. The

application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in

filing the original application is hereby condoned. Objection

raised by learned counsel for the respondents is hereby

rejected.

Admit.

Let the case be registered as O.A.


granted four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder

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

within two weeks, thereafter.

form no. 4 [see rule 11(1)] order sheet armed …aftlko.up.nic.in/c2 daily order/c2 order-2017/c2...

Documents