form no. 4 {see rule 11(1)} order sheet armed forces

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

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No.1 (E. Court)

O.A. No. 113 of 2021

Ex. Nk. Yatendra Singh 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

02.09.2021 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) Hon’ble Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member (A)

Heard Shri K.K. Misra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Alok

Kumar Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

Original Application is allowed.

For order, see our Judgment passed on separate sheets.

Misc. Application, if any, pending for disposal, shall be treated to have

been disposed of.

(Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve) (Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava) Member (A) Member (J)

AKD/-


ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No.1

O.A. No. 22 of 2020 with M.A. No. 86 of 2019

Smt. Phoolwati Devi W/o Sep. Mohan Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Heard arguments of Col. R.C. Dixit (Retd.), Ld. Counsel for the

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

Judgment reserved.


AKD/-




Ex. Hav. Uday Pratap Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Memo of Appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Shukla, Advocate on behalf of the

respondents is taken on record.

Heard Shri Vinay Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh

Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

The matter pertains to pensionary benefits in regard to which an application

supported with affidavit has been filed for condonation of delay as there is a delay of

more than ten years in filing of Original Application.

It is submitted that law of limitation is not applicable in pensionary matter. It

is further submitted that delay in filing Original Application is not deliberate, but for the

reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of application.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer.

Having heard submissions of Ld. Counsel of both sides and considering the

facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that law of limitation is not

applicable in pensionary matter. We are further of the view that cause shown for delay,

if any, in filing Original Application is sufficient. Accordingly, delay condonation

application is allowed and delay is condoned.

O.A. No. 479 of 2021

It is a fit case for adjudication.

Admit.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks and is allowed four weeks time to file

Counter Affidavit. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List the matter before Registrar on 29.10.2021 for exchange of pleadings.

List the matter before Tribunal on 22.11.2021.


AKD/-




Smt. Dilmani W/o Late Nk. Mohd. Saheed Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Memo of Appearance filed by Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Advocate on

behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

Heard Shri R. Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Dr. Shailendra

Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

The Original Application has been filed for grant of Special Family Pension

with delay of 24 years, 11 months and 24 days.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is a pensionary

matter in which bar of limitation is not applicable. His further submission is that delay

in filing Original Application is not deliberate, but for the reasons stated in affidavit filed

in support of application.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that explanation of

delay offered by the applicant is not sufficient as he has failed to offer day to day

explanation of delay.

Considering that in pensionary matters bar of limitation is not applicable and

grounds stated in affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application are

genuine and sufficient, delay is liable to be condoned.

Accordingly, delay in filing application is condoned. Delay condonation

application stands decided accordingly.

O.A. No. 488 of 2021


Admit.






AKD/-




Ex. Sqn. Ldr. Mahendra Pal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Memo of Appearance filed by Ms. Appoli Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of

the respondents is taken on record.

Heard Shri S.N. Singh Gaherwar and Shri Ajit Singh Gaherwar, Ld. Counsel

for the applicant and Ms. Appoli Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

The Original Application has been filed with delay of 16 years, 08 months

and 13 days.













O.A. No. 489 of 2021


Admit.






AKD/-




Ex. L/Nk Mukesh Kumar Ravi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Memo of Appearance filed by Dr. Gyan Singh, Advocate on behalf of the

respondents is taken on record.

Heard Shri Himanshu and Shri Hemant Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

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

The instant Original Application has been filed for grant of service pension

with delay of 02 months and 13 days.

In regard to delay the applicant has filed an application for condonation of

delay supported with affidavit.

In view of facts averred in affidavit filed in support of delay condonation

application, delay is condoned. Delay condonation application stands decided

accordingly.

O.A. No. 490 of 2021


Admit.






AKD/-




Ex. Sgt. Shyam Prakash Srivastava Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Memo of Appearance filed by Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf

of the respondents is taken on record.

Heard Shri Keshav Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish

Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

The Original Application has been filed for grant of disability pension with

delay of 01 year, 09 months and 13 days.













O.A. No. 491 of 2021


Admit.






AKD/-



O.A. (A) No. 487 of 2021

Ex. Wg. Cdr. Sushil Bajpai Appellant By Legal Practitioner for the Appellant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri S.G. Singh and Shri

Anand Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the appellant are present.

Shri Namit Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents

and he submits that he will file the Memo of Appearance today during the

course of the day.

The matter needs adjudication, hence admitted for hearing.

Respondents to file Counter Affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder

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

List the matter before Registrar on 29.10.2021 for exchange of

pleadings.



AKD/-



M.A. No. 510 of 2021 with M.A. No. 511 of 2021 Inre : O.A. No. 90 of 2017

Union of India & Others Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants

Versus Smt. Anju Ranni Respondent By Legal Practitioner for Respondent




Herd Ms. Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicants –

Union of India and Others.

As per office note, there is no delay in filing Leave to

Appeal, delay condonation application is dismissed being not

required.

This is an application for leave to appeal under Section 30

read with Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. After

perusing the orders impugned, we find that no much or less point of

law of general public importance involved for grant leave to appeal.

Accordingly, Leave to Appeal is dismissed.


AKD/-



Ex. A. No. 6 of 2019 Inre : O.A. No. 290 of 2016

Along with M.A. No. 170 of 2020 with O.A. No. (Nil) of 2020

Ex. Sep. Harendra Vikram Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Yashpal Singh, Ld.

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

respondents are present.

It is submitted by Shri Yashpal Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing on

behalf of the applicant that ten days further time be granted to file reply against

Supplementary Affidavit filed by the respondents, as reply could not be filed

due to illness of the applicant.

Let reply be filed within ten days, as prayed.

List on 04.10.2021.


AKD/-



M.A. No. 170 of 2020 with O.A. No. (Nil) of 2020

Along with Ex. A. No. 6 of 2019 Inre : O.A. No. 290 of 2016

Ex. Sep. Harendra Vikram Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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


List on 04.10.2021.


AKD/-



Ex. A. No. 19 of 2019 Inre : T.A. No. 34 of 2010

Along with O.A. No. 509 of 2018 with M.A. No. 73 of 2019

Ex. Sep. Vinay Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Sachindra Pratap Singh

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

Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

Counter Affidavit filed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents is taken

on record.

It is submitted by Shri Yashpal Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing on

behalf of the applicant that reply to the Counter Affidavit filed by the

respondents shall be filed today in the registry during the course of the day.

List on 04.10.2021.


AKD/-




Along with Ex. A. No. 19 of 2019 Inre : T.A. No. 34 of 2010

Ex. Sep. Vinay Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Sachindra Pratap Singh

and Shri Yashpal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Yogesh

Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Shri D.C. Lohumi,

Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 7 are present.

List on 04.10.2021.


AKD/-




Ex. Sub. Kedar Prasad Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh

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

Counsel for the respondents are present.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that in Special Leave

Petition filed by the respondents against the Judgment and Order passed in

Original Application the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to allow the

Leave to Appeal application along with delay condonation application and issue

notice to the applicant-respondent. However, he also submits that there is no

stay granted against the operation of the order.

Considering that Leave to Appeal application has been allowed and

notice has been issued to the applicant- respondent in Appeal filed against the

order under execution it is proper to provide one more opportunity to

respondents to make compliance of the order or bring stay order from the

Hon’ble Apex Court.

Let this exercise be done within four weeks failing which respondents

shall pay Rs.10,000/- as cost to the applicant.

Respondents to deposit the cost due against them by the next date

fixed.

The cost earlier deposited by the respondents be paid to the

applicant.

List on 25.10.2021.


AKD/-




Ex. Gnr. Ratan Maity Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus The CO, 152 AD Regt. & Others Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Rohit Kumar, Ld. Counsel

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


During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant

admitted that P.P.O. issued in compliance of the order has been received by

the applicant, however, his submission is that no amount has been credited in

applicant’s account till date.

Pension Disbursing Authority is a party in the Execution Application.

Applicant can file application for the impleadment of Pension

Disbursing Authority in the Execution Application, if he so desires, within two

weeks.

List on 08.10.2021.


AKD/-




Ex. Gnr. Ashish Kumar Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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

are present.

It is submitted by Ms. Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents that though Government sanction has been accorded in the

matter, but no P.P.O. has been issued. She sought and is allowed four weeks

time to ensure that Corrigendum P.P.O. is issued and get the same file on

record.

List on 11.10.2021.


AKD/-




Lt. Col. D.S. Jasrotia (Retd.) Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri R. Chandra, Ld. Counsel

for the applicant and Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents

are present.

Shri R. Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that P.P.O.

issued by the respondents in compliance of the order has been received by the

applicant. He further submits that Execution Application may be disposed off in

the aforesaid terms with a direction to the respondents to supply copy of

R.S.M.B. report to the applicant.

Accordingly, Execution Application is disposed off with the direction to

the respondents to supply copy of R.S.M.B. report to the applicant at the

earliest, preferably within four weeks.

Let copy of this order be provided to the Ld. Counsel of both sides

within two days.


AKD/-




Ex. Sub. Chandreshwar Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri R. Chandra, Ld. Counsel

for the applicant and Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents

are present.

Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that

implementation of the order is still in process, therefore, four weeks further time

be granted to file affidavit of compliance which is allowed.

Respondents are also directed to deposit the cost awarded against

them by the next date fixed.

List on 13.10.2021.


AKD/-




Sgt. Rohitash Kumar Sharma Applicant In Person





On the case being taken up for hearing the applicant Shri Rohitash

Kumar in person and Shri Kaushik Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the respondents

are present.

On the request of Shri Kaushik Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents four weeks further time is granted to file affidavit of compliance.

List on 26.10.2021.


AKD/-




Col. Anurag Kumar (Retd.) Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri S.G. Singh and Shri

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


It is submitted by Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents that order has been complied with. It is further submitted that two

weeks time be granted to the respondents to file affidavit of compliance which

is allowed.

List on 30.09.2021.


AKD/-



Ex. A. No. 21 of 2021 Inre : O. A. No. 601 of 2018

Ex. Nk. Dhruvajit Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi,

Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


Supplementary Affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating

therein that implementation of the order is in process. It is submitted that four

weeks further time be granted to file affidavit of compliance which is allowed.

Let affidavit of compliance be filed within four weeks.

List on 26.10.2021.


AKD/-




Ex. Hav. (Hony. Nb. Sub.) Hari Shyam Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents is present and he submits that in the matter in

question the P.P.O. has been issued and pursuance thereof Rs.2,05,118/- has

been credited in applicant’s account in June, 2021. Thus, his submission is that

so far as the matter pertains to the implementation of the order the same

stands closed with the issuance of P.P.O. His further submission is that if

amount is not being credited in the applicant’s account then it will be a dispute

between the Bank and the applicant, notice in this regard may be issued to the

Pension Disbursing Authority who is also a party in the Execution Application

as respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

Issue notice to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 returnable within four weeks.

List on 26.10.2021.


AKD/-




Rect. Brijesh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Ashok Singh and Shri

Vikas Singh Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Anurag Mishra,

Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

It is submitted by Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents that implementation of the order is in process, therefore, four

weeks further time be granted to the respondents to file affidavit of compliance

which is allowed.

List on 12.10.2021.


AKD/-



Ex. A. No. 33 of 2021 Inre : T.A. No. 1295 of 2010

Sub. Tech. (Gun) Chandra Deo Ram Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Wg. Cdr. S.N. Dwivedi

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

the respondents are present.

It is requested by Shri D.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents

that two weeks further time be granted to respondents to file affidavit of

compliance which is allowed.

List on 28.09.2021.


AKD/-



O.A. No. 77 of 2016

Brig. S.K. Sharma (Retd.) Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri S.S. Rajawat, Ld.

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


Shri S.S. Rajawat, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that in view

of the fact that Appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the hearing of

this case be adjourned, till outcome of the said Appeal.

In view of above, list on 30.12.2021.


AKD/-

Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET


O.A. No 103 of 2018

Ayodhya Prasad Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Anand Yadav, holding

brief of Shri SG Singh , Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Yogesh

Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

Shri Anand Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Shri SG Singh

submitted that case be listed to some other date so that steps for substitution

application may be taken.

Admittedly applicant died more than three months ago and no steps

for substitution being taken in the given time i.e. ninety days from the date of

death, Original Application stood abated by operation of law. In the said

circumstances the prayer to grant time for taking steps for substitution cannot

be accepted.

In the result, O.A. is dismissed being abated.

(Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve) (Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava) Member (A) Member (J) UKT/-



O.A. No 32 of 2020 with M.A. No 197 of 2019

Smt Shanti Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Vakalat Nama filed by Shri Gaurav Gunjan on behalf of respondent

No 4 and 5 is taken on record. Registry is directed to show his name as

learned counsel for respondent No 4 and 5 on the next date of listing.

On the case being taken up for hearing Shri BB Tripathi and Shri Amit

Verma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, Shri Gaurav

Gunjan and Shri RP Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

Shri Gaurav Gunjan, learned counsel for respondent No 4 and 5 prays

for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit.

List on 11.10.2021 for orders.





Ex Sep Ram Babu Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri R Chandra, Ld. Counsel

for the applicant and Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No 1

to 4 are present.

No one is present on behalf of Respondent No 5 and 6.

Notice sent to Respondent No 5 has been received back undelivered

due to incomplete address and it is informed that respondent No 6 has shifted

its office from Etawah to Lucknow.

Applicant is directed to furnish correct and complete address of

Respondent No 5 and 6 within a week.

On steps being taken, Registry is directed to issue notice to both the

respondents returnable within four weeks.

List on 11.10.2021 for orders.




O.A. No 675 of 2020

Ex Hav Surendra Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri SS Rajawat and Shri

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


Counter affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record.

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

time to file rejoinder affidavit.

List on 06.10.2021 for final hearing.

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

original documents pertaining to case for perusal of the Court.


Form No. 4



O.A. No 195 of 2021

Smt Laxmi Kandari, W/o Hav Sohan Singh (Missing) Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld.

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


Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by respective parties are

taken on record.

As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list on 03.09.2021 for

final hearing.




Ex. A. No 53 of 2019 Inre T.A. No 17 of 2017

Alongwith T.A. No 17 of 2017

Sqn Ldr RK Kashyap (Retd) Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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


Shri Yashpal Singh, Advocate submitted that he is not conducting this

case rather this case is being conducted by Col YR Sharma (Retd) who is sick.

Keeping in view the sickness of Col YR Sharma (Retd), list this case

on 28.10.2021 for final hearing.


Form No. 4



O.A. No 432 of 2017

Santosh Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri JN Singh, Ld. Counsel for

the applicant and Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are

present.





O.A. No 472 of 2017

Dilip Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Heard Shri VK Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit

Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by respective parties are

taken on record.

Heard arguments of learned counsel of the parties.

Order reserved.




O.A. No 96 of 2018

Hibju Rahman Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Heard Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri

Adesh Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

During course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that grievances raised in O.A. have been redressed and PPO has

been issued. He further submitted that some time be given to respondents to

bring PPO on record.

Let PPO bring on record on affidavit within a week.

List on 28.09.2021 for hearing.




O.A. No 276 of 2018

Tejinder Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Lalit Kumar, Ld. Counsel

for the applicant and Ms. Appoli Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the respondents

are present.


hearing on top of the board.




O.A. No 339 of 2018

Radhey Shyam Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri KK Misra, Ld. Counsel for

the applicant and Dr. SN Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.





O.A. No 351 of 2019

Bhopal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri KK Misra, Ld. Counsel for

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

present.


final hearing.




O.A. No 454 of 2019

Ex Sigmn Dinesh Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld.

Counsel for the applicant and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal and Shri DC Lohumi,

Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No 5 and 6 has also

been filed and the same is taken on record.

Applicant may file rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks.






Smt Aash Kumari Gurung @ As Kumari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri BB Tripathi and shri Amit

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



hearing.




O.A. No 276 of 2020

Ex Sigmn Pramesh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Om Prakash Kushwaha,

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






O.A. No 330 of 2020

Ex Hav Gajendra Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Virat Anand Singh, Shri

Pankaj Kumar Shukla and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Ms. Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

Counter and rejoinder affidavit filed by the parties are already on

record.

Case is ripe for hearing.




ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 1

O.A. No. 28 of 2021

Ex Rfn/Clk Lalit Kishor John Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Order pronounced today in the open Court.

O.A. No. 28 of 2021, Ex Rfn/Clk Lalit Kishor John vs. Union of India

and Others is dismissed.

For order, see our judgment passed on separate sheets.


been disposed of.

(Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve) (Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava) Member (A) Member (J) SB



O.A. No. 232 of 2020

Smt Madhuree Devi, M/o Late Ex Sep Gyanendra Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant




02.09.2021 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) Hon’ble Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member (A) Heard Shri Virat Anand Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.

Original Application is dismissed.

For order, see our judgment passed on separate sheets.


been disposed of.

(Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve) (Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava) Member (A) Member (J) SB

form no. 4 {see rule 11(1)} order sheet armed forces

Documents