Form No. 4 {See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES ...aftlko.up.nic.in/C1 Daily Order/c1...

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

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

Ex-A/19 of 2012 with M.A. No 56 of 2017 Inre T.A. No. 67 of 2010 Jagdish Singh Mahara Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus

DG Inf & Others Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents

Notes of the Registry

Orders of the Tribunal

30.11.2017 Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal BBP Sinha, Member (A)

Present : Dr. Gyan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,

assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Case called out.

None responds for the applicant.

List this case for orders before the Circuit Bench at Nainital

on 15.01.2018.

(Air Marshal BBP Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) LN/-



Ex-A/83 of 2017 Inre O.A. No. 76 of 2016 Dan Singh Mehra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus

Union of India & Others Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




Present : Shri A.K. Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.


Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET


Ex-A/100 of 2017 Inre O.A. No. 07 of 2013 Mukesh Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




Ex-A/117 of 2017 Inre O.A. No. 244 of 2014 Balwant Singh Parihar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 1431 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1432 of 2014 Inre Dy No 162 of 2013

Balam Ram Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




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

Smt Sagro Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




M.A. No. 2027 of 2016 with M.A. No. 554 of 2017 Inre OA Nil of 2016

Kharak Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




M.A. No. 837 of 2017 with M.A. No. 838 of 2017 Inre M.A. No. 477 of 2016

Pushkar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 839 of 2017 with M.A. No. 840 of 2017 Inre M.A. No. 476 of 2016

Liladhar Bhatt Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




M.A. No. 1248 of 2017 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Ex Capt (MNS) Hema Bist Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri A.K. Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




M.A. No. 1251 of 2017 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Diwan Singh Bora Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Dr. Chet Narain Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 1252 of 2017 Inre O.A. No Nil of 2017 Laxmi Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri RC Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 1276 of 2017 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Rajendra Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




O.A. No. 195 of 2010 Anil Kumar Arya Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




O.A. No. 185 of 2014 Lal Bahadur Gurung Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




O.A. No. 19 of 2015 Smt Manju Joshi & Ors Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.

None responds for the applicants.


on 15.01.2018.




O.A. No. 48 of 2017 Smt Radhika Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




O.A. No. 53 of 2017 Ishwar Singh Chiral Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




O.A. No. 54 of 2017 Kedar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.


Form No. 4



O.A. No. 55 of 2017 Jai Prakash Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




O.A. No. 68 of 2017 Bhim Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.


Form No. 4



O.A. No. 75 of 2017 Randheer Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




O.A. No. 448 of 2017 Kundan Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

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




Present : Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


Case called out.


Counter affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on

record. The applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within two

weeks.


on 15.01.2018.


Form No. 4



O.A. No. 449 of 2017 Dhan Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




RA No 23 of 2015 Inre TA No 101 of 2011 BS Ghuman Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




T.A. No. 21 of 2017 Vinod Chand Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus







Case called out.



on 15.01.2018.




O.A. No. 52 of 2017 Bhupal Singh Jantwal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri AK Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Case called out.


List this case for hearing before the Circuit Bench at

Nainital on 15.01.2018.




TA No 565 of 2010 Khima Nand Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus







Case called out.


List this case for hearing before the Circuit Bench at

Nainital on 15.01.2018.




M.A. No. 1309 of 2017 In re: T.A. 1402 of 2010

Anurag Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





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

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


On the insistent request made by learned counsel for the

respondents, the case is directed to be listed on 01.12.2017 for

further hearing.

It is stated that cost of Rs 500/- imposed by order dated

02.11.2017 has not yet been deposited.

Let it be deposited by the next date fixed.

(Air Marshal BBP Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) MH/-



M.A. No. 2122 of 2017 In re: O.A. Nil of 2017

Rajai Pal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri

B.P.Singh as counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Let

his name be shown as counsel for the respondents when the

case is next listed.

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

Shri B.P.Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by

Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is

granted three weeks’ time to file objection to the Application for

condonation of delay. Replication, if any, may be filed within one

week next thereafter.

List this case on 10.01.2018 for admission.





Jwala Prasad Upadhyay Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri Ashish

Kumar Singh as counsel for the respondents is taken on record.

Let his name be shown as counsel for the respondents when the


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

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

assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.



condonation of delay. Replication to it if any may be filed within

one week next thereafter.

List this case on 10.01.2018 for orders.





Surendra Nath Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Ms Deepti P.

Bajpai as counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Let his

name be shown as counsel for the respondents when the case is

next listed.

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

and Ms Deepti P. Bajpai Ld. Counsel for the respondents,











Malkhan Singh Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Dr. Shesh

Narain Pandey, as counsel for the respondents is taken on

record. Let his name be shown as counsel for the respondents

when the case is next listed.

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

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










O.A. No. 578 of 2017

Lakshyadeep Singh Yadav Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Krishan Lal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Dr. Shailesh Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the

respondents assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents has raised objection

with regard to reliefs sought in the O.A.

Learned counsel for the Applicant prays for a day’s time to

amend the relief.

In view of the above, the O.A is directed to be listed on

01.12.2017 for orders.




D.Y. No. 2769 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1637 of 2017

In re: O.A. Nil of 2016

Sunil Tewari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


Replication has not yet been filed by the applicant to the

objection.

M.A.No.1637 of 2017

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record on the Application seeking condonation of delay.

Since prayer made in the O.A is for grant of disability pension, it

being a recurring cause of action, case is made out for condoning the

delay.

In view of the above, the Application is allowed and the delay in

filing the O.A is condoned.

Admit.

Learned counsel for the Applicant prays for and is granted three

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

filed within two weeks next thereafter.

List this case on 11.01.2018 for hearing in case counter and

rejoinder affidavits are exchanged or else it be listed for orders.




M.A. No. 2128 of 2017 In re: M.A. 2475 of 2016

Sone Devi Mishrain Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






Virendra Singh, as counsel for the respondents is taken on

record. Let his name be shown as counsel for the

respondents when the case is next listed.

Present: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Virendra Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


M.A.No 2128 of 2017

We have heard learned counsel for the Applicant as

also learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the Applicant has explained his

absence on the date. In view of the above, we are of the

view that the explanation offered is cogent and convincing.

The Application is allowed and the order dated 01.11.2017 is

recalled of course subject to payment of cost which we

quantify at Rs 500/- to be deposited within a week. On cost

being deposited the same shall be remitted to the account of

Local Bar Association for being utilised for up-gradation of

its library.

Replication to objection was to be filed vide order

dated 10.08.2017. Let it be filed by the next date fixed.





T.A. No. 03 of 2017

Kamlesh Prasad Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by A.N.Tripathi,

as counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Let his name

be shown as counsel for the respondents when the case is next

listed.

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

Counsel for the respondent, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC

Legal Cell.

It is Transferred Application in which notices were issued

to be served on the petitioner. According to the office report, the

notices have been served on the petitioner and yet there is no

appearance for the petitioner.

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed for want of

prosecution.




D.Y. No. 1367 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1247 of 2017


Avnish Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Satish Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the

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


Objection filed today is taken on record.

Replication, if any, may be filed within two weeks.





EX-A No. 73 of 2017 In re: T.A. 96 of 2016

Maj Gen DVS Rana Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Shri K.C. Ghildyal, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

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

by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

It is informed that interim order passed in this case by the

Apex Court is still continuing.

In view of the above, list this case on 20.02.2018 awaiting

further orders from the Apex Court.





Gopal Pandey Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Shri D.C. Tewari, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

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


This is an Application seeking execution of the order

passed by the Tribunal.

OIC Legal Cell prays for four weeks’ time in order to seek

instructions in the matter.

List this case on 09.01.2018 for showing cause why the

order of the Tribunal dated 01.05.2017 has not yet been

complied with.




M.A. No. 1900 of 2016 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Bhaiya Lal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


Despite time having been granted on several occasions,

replication has not yet been filed.

As prayed, one week’s further time is allowed to file

replication.






Munni Lal Ram Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

and Shri A.K. Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


Reply to supplementary affidavit was to be filed by the

learned counsel for the respondents vide order dated

12.09.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for further time

to file reply to the supplementary affidavit.

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

19.12.2017 for orders.




M.A No. 588 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Ajay Kumar K Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

Applicant and Shri Sunil Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the

Respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents was to file counter

affidavit within four weeks vide order dated 11.09.2017. No

counter affidavit has yet been filed.

As prayed, three weeks further time is granted to file

counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within

two weeks next thereafter.





M.A. No. 653 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1289 of 2017 In re: O.A. Nil of 2017

Smt Jinntun Nisha Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri A.K. Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


Two weeks time was granted to file replication to the

objection vide order dated 23.10.2017. No replication has yet

been filed.

As prayed a week’s further time is granted to file

replication.






Radhey Shyam Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


Objection was to be filed within two weeks vide order

dated 23.10.2017.

As prayed a week’s further time is allowed to file objection.

Replication, if any, may be filed within one week next thereafter.






Karan Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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


Objection filed by learned counsel for the respondents is

taken on record. Replication, if any may be filed within three

weeks.






Shailendra Singh (Deceased) Through Savita Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus

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




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

Applicant and Shri Ashish Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the


Time was granted to file objection and replication vide

order dated 01.09.2017.

As prayed, two weeks’ further time is allowed to file

objection. Replication, if any, may be filed within one week next

thereafter.






Paras Nath Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri Rajiv Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,



Replication, if any, may be filed within one week.

List this case for orders on 06.12.2017.





Shri Pal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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



Replication, if any, may be filed within one week.





O.A No. 143 of 2015 with M.A. No. 1019 of 2016

Shaikh Ibrahim Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


Heard.

Arguments concluded.

Judgment reserved.




O.A No. 17 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2442 of 2016

Rajender Singh Bisht Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: None for the applicant and Shri Kaushik

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

Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the Applicant is stated to be not

available today.

Rejoinder affidavit has not yet been filed.

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

to be listed on 12.12.2017 for orders.

In the meanwhile, rejoinder affidavit may be filed.




O.A No. 87 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2056 of 2017 & M.A. No. 765 of 2016

Diwan Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld. Counsel for the

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


Counter affidavit has been filed but rejoinder affidavit has

not yet been filed in terms of earlier order dated 12.10.2017.

As prayed, a week’s further time is allowed to file rejoinder

affidavit.

List this case on 15.12.2017 for hearing in case rejoinder

affidavit is filed or else it shall be listed for orders.




O.A No. 218 of 2016

Shitla Prasad Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

and Ms Deept P. Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed, two weeks’ further time is granted to file

counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit if any may be filed within


List this case on 15.12.2017 for orders. (Air Marshal BBP Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) MH/-



O.A No. 324 of 2016

Harbans Singh Through Manmeet Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri D.S. Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri A.K. Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.


counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within


List this case on 21.12.2017 for hearing in case counter

and rejoinder affidavits are exchanged or else the case shall be

listed for orders.




O.A No. 121 of 2017

Bishwanath Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



Despite time having been granted, rejoinder affidavit has

not been filed.


In the meanwhile, rejoinder affidavit may be filed by the

date fixed.




T.A. No. 05 of 2017

Anand Prakash Tiwari Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: None for the petitioner and Shri Md Zafar Khan,

Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul

Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

In the instant case, notices were directed to be served on

the petitioner for his appearance. According to office report,

notices were duly served on the petitioner. Despite notices

having been served, there is no appearance for the petitioner.

In view of the above, the case is dismissed for want of

prosecution.




M.A. No. 2057 of 2017 with T.A. No. 42 of 2017

Col Mukul Singhal Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





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

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


The case has been argued by the petitioner himself as his

counsel could not appear due to flight being late in arrival at

Lucknow.

From the record, it appears that rejoinder affidavit has not

been filed.

In view of the above, two days’ time is granted to file

rejoinder affidavit.

List this case on 06.12.2017 for further hearing.




T.A. No. 572 of 2010 Along with T.A. No. 573 of 2010

& T.A. No. 633 of 2010

HCS Rautela Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





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

and Shri Sushil Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed, list this case for further hearing on 04.12.2017

alongwith other connected cases.




T.A. No. 633 of 2010 Along with T.A. No. 635 of 2010

& T.A. No. 572 of 2010

Upendra Singh Chauhan Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus






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



alongwith other connected cases.




T.A. No. 635 of 2010 with T.A. No. 1479 of 2010

Along with T.A. No. 633 of 2010 T.A. No. 572 of 2010

Anil Joshi Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus








As prayed, list this case for further hearing on

04.12.2017 alongwith other connected cases.




D.Y. No. 2451 of 2017 In re: O.A. Nil of 2017

Col Gyan Prakash Srivastava (Retd) Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

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




Memo of appearance filed by Shri Siddharth Dhaon on behalf of

the respondents is taken on record. His name shall be shown in the

cause list.

Present: Shri TB Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and

Shri Siddharth Dhaon, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by


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

respondents assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

The applicant has preferred the instant O.A. for grant of

disability pension. He had also filed a statutory appeal, which is

pending.

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the controversy,

with the consent of Ld. Counsel for the parties, we decide the present

O.A. finally directing the competent authority to decide the statutory

appeal of the applicant in accordance with rules keeping in view the

Apex Court judgment in the case of Dharambir Singh vs. Union of

India and others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 316 and Sukhvinder

Singh vs. Union of India, reported in (2014) STPL (WEB) 468 SC,

expeditiously, say, within four months from the date of receipt of

certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.

(Air Marshal BBP Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) JPT




Siddharth Shankar Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed by Shri Ashish Saxena on

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

shown in the cause list.

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

applicant and Shri Ashish Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the


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

time is allowed to file objection on application for condonation of

delay to which Ld. Counsel for the applicant may file replication

within next one week.

List the case on 18.12.2017 for orders.





Samar Pal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed by Dr. Gyan Singh on behalf of

the respondents is taken on record. His name shall be shown in

the cause list.

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

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











Shauvir Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed by Ms Amrita Chakraborty on



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

Ms Amrita Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,











KL Gupta Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed by Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal

on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. His name shall

be shown in the cause list.




Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted

four weeks’ time to file objection on application for condonation

of delay to which Ld. Counsel for the applicant may file

replication within next two weeks.





O.A. No. 579 of 2017

Ajit Singh Rajput Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed by Shri G.S. Sikarwar on behalf

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

in the cause list.


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


List the case on 08.12.2017 to show cause as to why the

applicant’s pending statutory appeal has not been decided.




EX-A No. 201 of 2017 In re: O.A. 340 of 2015

Jitendra Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed by Shri Namit Sharma on behalf


in the cause list.




Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the

Government sanction has been accorded and the PPO is likely

to be issued very soon.

List the case on 02.01.2018 to enable the respondents to

submit compliance report, including copy of the PPO.




M.A. No. 1433 of 2017 with M.A. No. 2118 of 2017


Maj Rajendra Singh & 23 Others Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants

Versus





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

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


Objection filed by the respondents is taken on record.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents raised preliminary

objection that some of the applicants are outsiders and are not

residing within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, hence the petition

is not maintainable. The second submission of the Ld. Counsel

for the respondents is that the affidavit has not been filed on

behalf of all the applicants while making prayer for condonation

of delay.

So far as first limb of argument is concerned the

arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant in reply thereto is

that though some of the persons are belonging to other states

but they are presently, temporarily, residing in the state of UP,

which falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules

2008 deals with the place of filing of application which is

reproduced as under:-

“6 Place of filing application. (1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by the applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62480750/

(i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or was last posted or attached; or (ii) where the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen: Provided that with the leave of the Chairperson the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under section 14 or section 15 of the Act, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), a person who has ceased to be in service by reason of his retirement, dismissal, discharge, cashiering, release, removal, resignation or termination of service may, at his option, file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application. (1) Vide S.R.O. 26(E), dated 17th September, 2008, published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, Sec. IV, dated 17th September, 2008.”

A plain reading of Rule 6 (supra) shows that the application

may be filed with the Registrar of the Bench within whose

jurisdiction the person resides or where cause of action arose.

Since some of the applicants are residing in the jurisdiction of the

state of UP, though may be temporarily, the action falls within the

jurisdiction of this Tribunal and hence the petition is

maintainable.

So far as other limb of argument is concerned, it relates to

attestation of affidavit. In para 1 of the affidavit filed in support of

the O.A. it has been stated that the deponent is the Pairokar of

the case. In Hindi the word Pairokar means a person pursuing

the case on behalf of all the persons, who have been arrayed in

that petition. In case in the affidavit filed in support of the delay

condonation application the word Pairokar has not been used, it

is not fatal for the reason that main petition itself has been sworn

by the person concerned as Pairokar.

The learned counsel for the respondents also raised

objection against filing of a joint petition in the matter. In the

present case the applicants have not claimed any individual relief

but they are challenging the policy with regard to OROP, hence a

combined petition is very well maintainable on their behalf in the

Tribunal in letter and spirit of Rule 6 of Armed Forces Tribunal

(Procedure) Rules (supra).

The controversy relates to payment of OROP, which

involves a recurring cause of action and requires hearing.

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





settled proposition of law. It is also worthwhile to mention that

Vakalatnama has been signed by all the applicants in favour of

the Ld. Counsel representing them in the instant petition.

Accordingly, we admit the petition and permit the

respondents to file counter affidavit within four weeks. The

applicants may file rejoinder affidavit within next one week.

List the case on 03.01.2018 for hearing.

Respondents shall also produce the relevant records,

including orders and circulars on the date fixed.




M.A. No. 2097 of 2017 with M.A. No. 2098 of 2017 In re: O.A. 173 of 2017 In re M.A. No. 39 of 2017

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

Versus

Ram Sudhar Yadav Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant




Present: Dr. Shesh Narain Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the

applicants-respondent, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

M.A. No. 2097 of 2017

This is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5

of the Limitation Act in filing application for leave to appeal. The

Application has been preferred after lapse of statutory period. It is well

settled law that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay in

the matter.

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing

application for leave to appeal is not maintainable and is rejected.

M.A. No. 2098 of 2017 This is an application for grant of leave to appeal filed under

Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act.

Since the application for condonation of delay has already been

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

is also rejected.

(Air Marshal BBP Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) JPT-




In re: O.A. 192 of 2016

Subodh Verma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell for the respondents.

M.A. No. 2101 of 2017





the matter.







is also rejected.





In re: T.A. 364 of 2010

Hari Babu Nishad Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





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

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


M.A. No. 2114 of 2017





the matter.




Section 31of Armed Forces Tribunal Act.



is also rejected.





Selina John Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





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

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


The matter is still pending in the Apex Court.





M.A. No. 2435 of 2016

Ayodhya Prasad Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC

Legal Cell.

Shri SG Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is reported to

be out of station and the adjournment has been sought for to

which Ld. Counsel for the respondents has no objection.





M.A. No. 370 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1031 of 2017 In re: O.A. Nil of 2017

Pankaj Kumar Shukla Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Shiv Shanker Singh, Ld. Counsel for the



As prayed, list the case on 04.12.2017 for orders.





Prem Chand Ram Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


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

on 14.12.2017 for orders.





Girish Chandra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, one week’s

time is granted to file objection on delay condonation application

to which Ld. Counsel for the applicant may file replication within

next one week.





M.A No. 864 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1776 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Bhopal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


Ld. Counsel for the applicant does not want to press the

petition. The application is accordingly dismissed as

withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh petition.





Uma Datt Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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


Controversy relates to payment of disability pension which

involves recurring cause of action.

The delay is accordingly condoned.

Admit.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents is granted three weeks’

time to file counter affidavit to which Ld. Counsel for the

applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within one week.


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

produce the records.





Pushkar Bharti Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


Question with regard to payment of OROP involves

recurring cause of action being related to payment of enhanced

pension. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

Admit.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents is granted three weeks’


applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within next one week.






Vikesh Kumar Balmiki Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

applicant and Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell for the

respondents.

Objection and counter affidavit filed by the respondents

are taken on record. The applicant may file reply and rejoinder

affidavit within one week.

Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is

not present.

As prayed, list the case on 07.12.2017 for orders.





Narendra Nath Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Ms Kavita Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

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


Reply filed by the applicant is taken on record.

Controversy relates to rounding off of pensionary benefits,

which involves recurring cause of action.

Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

Admit.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents is granted two weeks’




On the date fixed, respondents shall also produce records.





Hosila Prasad Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, one week’s

further time is granted to file objection on application for

condonation of delay to which Ld. Counsel for the applicant may

file replication within one week thereafter.






Shailendra Singh (Deceased) Through Savita Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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







M.A. No. 1461 of 2017 In re: O.A No. Nil of 2017

Bhawani Datt Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


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

on 04.12.2017 to enable him to file objection on application for

condonation of delay.





Girja Shanker Yadav Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

applicant and Shri Rajiv Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the



Controversy relates to grant of disability pension which

involves recurring cause of action. Accordingly, delay is

condoned.

Admit.





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

produce the records.





Santosh Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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


As prayed by Mrs Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents, one week’s further time is allowed to file objection

to which Ld. Counsel for the applicant may file replication within

one week thereafter.





M.A. No. 1552 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 200 of 2016

Ram Murty TiwariThrough His wife Smt Indira Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Rajendra Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Siddharth Dhaon, Ld. Counsel for the


List the case on 07.12.2017 to enable Ld. Counsel for the

respondents to file counter affidavit.





Krishna Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri S.N. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted



Ld. Counsel for the applicant may file replication within two

weeks.





M.A. No.143 of 2015 with M.A. No. 1019 of 2016

Shaikh Ibrahim Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell for the respondents.

Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is not

present.





O.A. No. 304 of 2017

Murari Lal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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


Copy of the order passed on second appeal by the

competent authority dated 28.04.2017 has been provided to Ld.

Counsel for the applicant.

Petition loses its efficacy and is accordingly dismissed

with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh petition, in case he feels

aggrieved and if so advised to do so.




O.A. No. 389 of 2017

Kulwant Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

applicant and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the


As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, three

weeks’ time is granted to file counter affidavit to which Ld.

Counsel for the applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within two

weeks thereafter.





O.A. No. 391 of 2017

Sunil Jain Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



As prayed, two weeks’ further time is granted to file counter

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

next thereafter.





O.A. No. 427 of 2017

Prem Kumar Yadav Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Sharad Kumar Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the


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

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

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





O.A. No. 441 of 2017

Smt Rekha Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



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

to file counter affidavit.

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

next thereafter.

List this case 29.01.2018 for orders.




T.A. No. 11 of 2017

Ram Chand Tripathi Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Col Rakesh Johri (Retd), Ld. Counsel for the

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


Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to file

counter affidavit during the course of the day.

A week’s time is allowed to file rejoinder affidavit.


Let original record be produced for perusal of the Bench on

the date fixed.




O.A. No. 302 of 2011

Brijendra Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


We have heard learned counsel for the parties again and

perused the records.


Judgment reserved.

The respondents may submit original records in sealed

cover to the office for onward transmission to this end.




O.A. No. 219 of 2016

Gp Capt Ajay Gaur Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents, list this

case on 07.12.2017 for rehearing on which date the learned

counsel shall furnish the required information and also the

documents pertaining to policy letter.

A copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the

respondents today itself.




O.A. No. 41 of 2015

Parmjit Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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


As prayed, list this case for further hearing on 06.12.2017.




O.A. No. 296 of 2015

Prakash Rai Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

applicant and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the


Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the

respondents on 23.10.2017 was taken on record. A copy of the

aforesaid affidavit has been provided to the learned counsel for

the Applicant.

Reply to aforesaid supplementary affidavit be filed within

three weeks.

List this case on 29.01.2018 for further hearing.




O.A. No. 219 of 2011 with M.A. No. 760 of 2017

Gupteshwar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell for the respondents.

OIC Legal Cell prays for adjournment of the case today as

counsel for the respondents is reportedly out of station.

List this case for hearing on 30.11.2017.




O.A. No. 145 of 2013 with M.A. No. 1897 of 2017 & M.A. No. 1814 of 2016

Satendra Singh Pal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








List this case on 06.12.2017 for hearing as prayed by

learned counsel for the parties.





Mahendra Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








According to office report no counter affidavit has been

filed in terms of earlier order of the Court. The lone Counter

affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no 4 is on record.

Let counter affidavit on behalf of remaining respondents be

filed within two weeks positively.


next thereafter.

List this case on 04.01.2018 for hearing.





Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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


By earlier order, two weeks’ further time was allowed to file

rejoinder affidavit and yet no rejoinder affidavit has been filed.

As prayed, two weeks’ further and no more time is allowed

to file rejoinder affidavit.





O.A. No. 105 of 2017

Smt Poonam Shukla Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Angrej Nath Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell for the

respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents is not present.

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

to be listed on 01.12.2017 for hearing.




O.A. No. 222 of 2017

Akash Vishwakarma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



Despite further time having been granted, no counter

affidavit has been filed.

Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks positively.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week

next thereafter.





O.A. No. 267 of 2017

Dinesh Chandra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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



affidavit has been filed as yet. As prayed, two weeks’ further time

is allowed to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may

be filed within one week next thereafter.





O.A. No. 401 of 2017

Ranjay Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

applicant and Shri Sunil Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the



affidavit has yet been filed.

Let counter affidavit be filed within two weeks positively.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week

next thereafter.


Let record be also produced for perusal of the Bench on

the next date fixed.




O.A. No. 404 of 2017

Ram Bhawan Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Ld Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Kaushik Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the



affidavit has yet been filed.

Let counter affidavit be filed within two weeks positively.


next thereafter.


Let record be also produced for perusal of the Bench on

the next date fixed.




O.A. No. 411 of 2017

Tribhuvan Shanker Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the


Counter affidavit filed is taken on record.

Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week.





EX-A No. 78 of 2017 In re: T.A. No. 33 of 2012

Surendra Singh Verma Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





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

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


The case was taken up in the revised list.

Shri V.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks

adjournment of the case for two weeks.

As prayed, list this case for orders on 14.12.2017.




O.A. No. 121 of 2017

Bishwanath Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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





Form No. 4



O.A. No. 390 of 2017

Awadh Bihari Murotiya Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


Counter affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on

record. The applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within two

weeks.





O.A. No. 405 of 2017

Lt Col Laxmi Narayan Trivedi (Retd) Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

and Shri Avadhesh Narain Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for the


As prayed, two weeks’ further time is allowed to the

respondents to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any,

may be filed by the applicant within two weeks thereafter.





O.A. No. 501 of 2017

VR Srivastava Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

applicant and Shri A.K. Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


As prayed, a week’s further time is allowed to the

respondents to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any,

may be filed by the applicant within one week thereafter.





T.A. No. 55 of 2009

Smt Poonam Rana & Others Petitioners By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioners

Versus





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

petitioners and Ms Amrita Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel for the






T.A. No. 05 of 2017

Anand Prakash Tiwari Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





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

respondents, assisted by WO Deshraj Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

List this case for orders on 30.11.2017 to enable the

Registry to submit report in terms of the order dated 23.11.2017.




M.A. No. 1309 of 2017 In re: T.A. No. 1402 of 2010

Anurag Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





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




as first case.




EX-A No. 182 of 2017 Along with O.A. No. 250 of 2017

Dr Parul Jain Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Vikas Shukla, Adocate, holding brief of S.S.

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

Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa,

OIC Legal Cell.

The respondents have annulled the lookout order, a copy

of which has been given to Sri Vikas Shukla, Advocate, holding

brief of Shri S.S.Rajawat, learned counsel for the applicant.

Accordingly, Execution Application No. 182 of 2017 loses its

efficacy and is hereby dismissed as infructuous.

O.A. No.250 of 2017 is admitted for hearing.

Two weeks’ time, as prayed, is allowed to the respondents

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

within two weeks thereafter.

List this case for hearing on 11.01.2018. The respondents

shall produce the record on the said date.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 1897 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1640 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 67 of 2015

Md Shoharab Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

applicant and Ms Deepti P. Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the


Two days’ time, as prayed, is granted to the applicant to

file replication.

List this case for hearing on 08.12.2017. The respondents

need not produce the record unless specifically called for.





Akhilesh Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


As prayed, list this case for hearing on 11.12.2017.




O.A. No. 317 of 2015

Ataullah Khan Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

applicant and Shri Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the







Shiv Narain Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


M.A. No. 1441 of 2017

This is an application moved by Smt. Urvashi Devi for

substitution of her name in place of her late husband, applicant

Shiv Narain Mishra

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we allow the

application. Let the amendment be carried out in the array of

parties within a week.





O.A. No. 95 of 2016

Anil Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Col Rakesh Johri (Retd), Ld. Counsel for the



Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.


Judgment reserved.





& M.A. No. 2780 of 2016

Amarnath Singh Kharwar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Diwarkar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Siddharth Dhaon, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents, Ms Tanu Bansal, Ld. Counsel for Punjab National

Bank respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Counter affidavit filed by respondent Punjab National Bank

is taken on record.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant may file rejoinder affidavit to

the counter affidavit filed by respondent Punjab National Bank

within two weeks.


On the date fixed, the respondents shall produce the

original records.




O.A. No. 255 of 2016

Brij Kishore Dwivedi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



Rejoinder affidavit filed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant is

taken on record.





O.A. No. 290 of 2016

Harendra Vikram Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



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

week’s time to file rejoinder affidavit.






Amit Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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



taken on record.





O.A. No. 143 of 2017

Davinder Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


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

time is allowed to file rejoinder affidavit.





T.A. No. 38 of 2011 with M.A. No. 1770 of 2017

Ashwani Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus






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


Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed a copy of the

medical certificate along with rejoinder affidavit. Ld. Counsel for

the respondents articulated his disagreement on medical opinion

expressed by Command Hospital, Lucknow on the point of its

genuineness.


time to file supplementary counter affidavit keeping in view the

pleadings made in the rejoinder affidavit.





T.A. No. 22 of 2016

Lal Chand Ram Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





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



With the consent of Ld. Counsel for the parties, list the

case on 04.01.2018 for hearing.

Let entire records be produced on the next date.




T.A. No. 57 of 2016

Santosh Kumar Tripathi Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the


Shri Virat Anand Singh, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is

reported to be out of station.

In the interest of justice, list the case on 20.12.2017 for

hearing.

On the date fixed, the respondents shall file original

records.





Lal Bahadur Patel Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Ms Appoli

Srivastava, as counsel for the respondents is taken on record.

Let her name be shown as counsel for the respondents when the


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

applicant and Ms Appoli Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the


As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents, two

weeks’ time is granted to file objection. Replication, if any, may



Learned counsel for the respondents shall also produce

the original records for perusal of the Bench on the date fixed.





Ramesh Chand Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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

Let his name be shown as counsel for the respondents when the


Present : Shri B.B. Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

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












Krishna Kumar S Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Shri Anurag

Mishra, as counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Let

his name be shown as counsel for the respondents when the


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

and Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,












Jageshwar Prasad & Others Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Ms Deepti

P.Bajpai, as counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Let

her name be shown as counsel for the respondents when the


Present : Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the

applicants and Ms Deepti P. Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the











O.A. No. 577 of 2017

Ram Avtar Through Wife Smt Poonam Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in court by Mrs Anju

Singh, as counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Let her

name be shown as counsel for the respondents when the case is

next listed.

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

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


We have heard learned counsel for the Applicant as also

learned counsel for the respondents.

The Applicant is aggrieved by the issue of show cause

notice dated 14.11.2017. It is submitted by learned counsel for

the Applicant that reply to show cause notice has already been

submitted vide reply dated 18.11.2017. Thus it would appear that

the petition filed in this Tribunal is premature. In our view, it has

been rightly submitted by learned counsel for the respondents

that since reply to show cause notice has been submitted, the

authorities have to take a decision in the matter keeping in view

the reply submitted by the Applicant.

In view of the above, we decline to interfere with the show

cause notice. However, in the facts and circumstances of the

case, we direct the competent authority to decide the objection of

the Applicant as contained in his reply to show cause notice in

accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order within a

period not exceeding one month from the date of submission of a

certified copy of this order.

The O.A is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above at

the very threshold.





Maj Rajendra Singh & 23 Others Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants

Versus





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

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


Objection has not been filed in terms of the order of the

Tribunal dated 31.10.2017. Learned counsel for the respondents

states that he would file the objection during the course of the

day. In case objection is filed during the course of the day, the

same shall be taken on record.






In re: O.A. 347 of 2017

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

Versus

Smt Ram Janki Respondent-Applicants By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicants




Present: Ms Amrita Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel for the

applicants-respondent, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal

Cell.

M.A. No. 2087 of 2017



application has been preferred after lapse of statutory period. It is well

settled law that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay.



M.A. No. 2088 of 2017

This is an application for grant of leave to appeal filed under




is also rejected.





In re: O.A. 242 of 2016

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

Versus

Bireshwar Kumar Respondent-Applicants By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicants




Present : Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


Cell.

M.A. No. 2089 of 2017



application has been preferred after lapse of statutory period. It is well

settled law that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay.



M.A. No. 2090 of 2017

This is an application for grant of leave to appeal filed under




is also rejected.




D.Y. No. 1692 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Urba Datt Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



Learned counsel for the Applicant prays for and is granted

two weeks and no more further time to remove the defects.





EX-A No. 116 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. 21 of 2013

Pramod Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








By order dated 26.10.2017, four weeks’ time was granted

to learned counsel for the respondents for issue of PPO.

Learned counsel for the respondents now states that the

papers required from the Applicant have not yet been submitted

and therefore, order dated 26.10.2017 could not be complied

with. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Applicant

submits that the entire papers required have already been

deposited in the record office.

In case papers have been deposited, the receipt may be

brought on record by the next date fixed.






Col Mahesh Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



Learned counsel for the respondents has stated across

the bar that the order of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case has

been stayed by Hon’ble Apex Court. The order of the Apex

Court has already been brought on record.

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

to be listed on 27.02.2018 awaiting the fate of the case pending

in the Apex Court.






Jagvir Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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


This is an Application for condonation of delay in filing the

O.A. The Factual matrix of the case is that the Applicant was

was enrolled in the Indian Army on 27.10.1994 and was granted

annual leave ending on 27.03.1999. According to learned

counsel for the Applicant, his annual leave was extended upto

20.05.1999. However, this fact has been repudiated by learned

counsel for the respondents. It would appear from the record that

on account of his overstaying the leave, the Applicant was

declared deserter and ultimately, he was dismissed from the

service on 08.10.2002. The necessary consequence of the

above is that the Applicant is now no more in Army service.

Learned counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant

is presently incarcerated in jail and his bail Application has been

rejected merely observing that the Applicant is a deserter from

Army. In this connection, he has invited attention to the order

passed by the judicial Magistrate dated 20.06.2016. The order, it

is informed, has been passed being influenced by the fact that

the Applicant was a deserter from Indian Army. Once the

Applicant has been dismissed from Army service on account of

overstaying the leave, the relationship of master and servant

between the Indian Army and the Applicant comes to nought and

now he is neither a deserter nor a member of Indian Army after

dismissal and he is now free and has a right to live independent

life without any restriction. Accordingly the order passed by the

Magistrate that too in the teeth of factual matrix on record that

the Applicant overstayed the leave on account of which he was

declared deserter and lateron dismissed from service, indicates

that correct materials were not placed before the Court

concerned.

Coming to the issue of delay, the averments made in para

7 of the affidavit indicate that the Applicant has tried to explain

the delay from the date of dismissal upto the year 2008. The

present O.A was filed before this Tribunal in the year 2016. No

plausible explanation is forthcoming for the delay between 2008

upto the year 2016.

In view of the above, the learned counsel for the Applicant

prays for and is granted three weeks’ time to explain the delay by

filing better affidavit.






Maharaj Ahmed Khan Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



Reply to objection filed by learned counsel for the

Applicant is taken on record.

On the point of delay in filing the O.A, since controversy

involved in this case revolves round the grant of disability

pension, which being a recurring cause of action, in our view,

case is made out for condonation of delay.

Hence Application for condonation of delay is allowed and

delay in filing the O.A is condoned.


learned counsel for the respondents on the issue of admission of

the O.A.

In our view, it is a fit case for admission.

Admit.


granted two weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder

affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week next thereafter.


and rejoinder affidavits are exchanged by the date fixed.

On the date fixed, learned counsel for the respondents

shall also produce the original records for perusal of the Bench.





Mohd Yunus Khan Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

and Ms Appoli Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


Objection was taken on record vide order dated

23.05.2017 while reply to objection was taken on record vide

order dated 23.11.2017.





M.A. No. 257 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1055 of 2017 & M.A. No. 1236 of 2017 In re: O.A. Nil of 2017

Bir Pal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


This is an Application for condonation of delay in filing the

O.A in this Tribunal whereby the order of discharge dated

13.11.1989 has been impugned.


learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material

facts on record.

Admittedly, the Applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army

on 13.01.1980 and thereafter he was discharged from the

service on 13.11.1989 under Rule 13 (3) (iii) (v) of the Army

Rule, 1954 on account of having incurred 4 red ink entries.

The argument of the learned counsel for the Applicant

substantially is that the Applicant was not served any show

cause notice and was capriciously discharged without any valid

reason.

From the record it would appear that the Applicant filed a

writ petition in the High Court at Allahabad in the year 2016

which was disposed of with the directions to the competent

authority to decide the representation of the Applicant vide order

dated 05.07.2016. The representation of the Applicant was

replied to vide communication dated 13.10.2016 whereby the

Applicant was informed that he was not entitled to any service

pension. Thereafter, a statutory complaint was filed on

16.11.2016 for reinstatement in the service in the light of the

judgement rendered in O.A. No 168 of 2013, Abhilash Singh

Kuhwaha Vs Union of India and others. The aforesaid Statutory

Petition was rejected vide order dated 05.01.2017.

From a perusal of the materials on record, it would

transpire that right from the year 1989 upto the year, the

Applicant kept on sleeping over the matter. All of a sudden, he

woke up and approached the High Court in which an order was

passed to decide the representation. The Applicant has not

explained the delay even broadly of the period between 1989 to

2016. Though on merit, the argument advanced by learned

counsel for the Applicant which is to the effect that his services

could not have been terminated merely on the ground that he

had incurred four red ink entries, is loaded with some substance,

but so far as present application for condonation of delay is

concerned, the delay is huge and no plausible cogent and

convincing explanation has been offered for the delay between

1989 to 2016. There is not even a remote whisper why the

Applicant kept on sleeping over the matter right from 1989 to

2016. The statutory petition has rightly been rejected by the

competent authority as it was marred by huge and inordinate

delay. The High Court has not gone into the merit of the

controversy and merely disposed of the petition by directing to

decide the representation of the Applicant. In such situation, the

Applicant seems to have failed to explain the delay.

In M.A. No. 1952 of 2015 B.D. Prajapati vs. Union of

India & Ors, we have relied upon the judgment of Balwant

Singh (supra) while deciding the controversy with regard to

condonation of delay. The relevant portion of the aforesaid

judgment is reproduced as under:-

“It must be kept in mind that whenever a law is enacted by the legislature, it is intended to be enforced in its proper perspective. It is an equally settled principle of law that the

provisions of a statute, including every word, have to be given full effect, keeping the legislative intent in mind, in order to ensure that the projected object is achieved. In other words, no provisions can be treated to have been enacted purposelessly. Furthermore, it is also a well settled canon of interpretative jurisprudence that the Court should not give such an interpretation to provisions which would render the provision ineffective or odious. Once the legislature has enacted the provisions of Order 22, with particular reference to Rule 9, and the provisions of the Limitation Act are applied to the entertainment of such an application, all these provisions have to be given their true and correct meaning and must be applied wherever called for. If we accept the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant that the Court should take a very liberal approach and interpret these provisions (Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act) in such a manner and so liberally, irrespective of the period of delay, it would amount to practically rendering all these provisions redundant and inoperative. Such approach or interpretation would hardly be permissible in law. Liberal construction of the expression `sufficient cause' is intended to advance substantial justice which itself presupposes no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant, to whom want of bona fide is imputable. There can be instances where the Court should condone the delay; equally there would be cases where the Court must exercise its discretion against the applicant for want of any of these ingredients or where it does not reflect `sufficient cause' as understood in law. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 2nd Edition, 1997] The expression `sufficient cause' implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The word `sufficient' means adequate enough, as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. It embraces no more than that which provides a plentitude which, when done, suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the light of existing circumstances and when viewed from the reasonable standard of practical and cautious men. The sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an excusable one. These provisions give the Courts enough power and discretion to apply a law in a meaningful manner, while assuring that the purpose of enacting such a law does not stand frustrated. We find it unnecessary to discuss the instances which would fall under either of these classes of cases. The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]

15. We feel that it would be useful to make a reference to the judgment of this Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom (supra). In this case, the Court, after discussing a number of judgments of this Court as well as that of the High Courts, enunciated the principles which need to be kept in mind while dealing with applications filed under the provisions of Order 22, CPC along with an application under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application for bringing the legal representatives on record. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Court held as under:-

"13 (i) The words "sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation" should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The






words `sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant."

(ii) In considering the reasons for condonation of delay, the courts are more liberal with reference to applications for setting aside abatement, than other cases. While the court will have to keep in view that a valuable right accrues to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent when the appeal abates, it will not punish an appellant with foreclosure of the appeal, for unintended lapses. The courts tend to set aside abatement and decided the matter on merits. The courts tend to set aside abatement and decide the matter on merits, rather than terminate the appeal on the ground of abatement.

(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation.

(iv) The extent or degree of leniency to be shown by a court depends on the nature of application and facts and circumstances of the case. For example, courts view delays in making applications in a pending appeal more leniently than delays in the institution of an appeal. The courts view applications relating to lawyer's lapses more leniently than applications relating to litigant's lapses. The classic example is the difference in approach of courts to applications for condonation of delay in filing an appeal and applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal after rectification of defects.

(v) Want of "diligence" or "inaction" can be attributed to an appellant only when something required to be done by him, is not done. When nothing is required to be done, courts do not expect the appellant to be diligent. Where an appeal is admitted by the High Court and is not expected to be listed for final hearing for a few years, an appellant is not expected to visit the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position nor keep checking whether the contesting respondent is alive. He merely awaits the call or information from his counsel about the listing of the appeal.

We may also notice here that this judgment had been followed with approval by an equi-bench of this Court in the case of Katari Suryanarayana (supra).”

In view of the above, we are of the view that the Applicant

has miserably failed to explain the delay in filing the O.A.

Thus, the application for condonation of delay is

dismissed. In consequence thereto the O.A. is also rejected.






Shishu Pal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

and Shri Ashish Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents,


Objection filed today in court is taken on record.

Let reply to objection be filed within two weeks.






Pratap Narayan Chaubey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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




objection to the Application for condonation of delay. Reply to

objection, if any, may be filed within one week next thereafter.

The respondents may also file counter affidavit by the date

fixed.

List this case on 04.01.2018 for admission/orders.

Learned counsel for the respondents may also produce

the original record for perusal of the Bench on the date fixed.





Onkar Nath Shukla Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


M.A.No 1272 of 2017



Since the controversy involved in this O.A pertains to

grantof disability pension, it being a recurring cause of action, in

our view, case is made out for condonation of delay.

Application for condonation of delay is allowed and the

delay is condoned.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties on

admission of the O.A.


Admit.

Let counter affidavit be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder



and rejoinder affidavits are exchanged.


shall also produce the original record for perusal of the Bench.





Vijay Pal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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




thereafter.






Col Kul Bhusan Ulfa Kaul (Retd) Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

and Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,




thereafter.






Sqn Ldr DH Prasad (Retd) & Others Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants

Versus





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



Objection filed is taken on record.

M.A.No 1434 of 2017




grant of one rank one pension, it being a recurring cause of

action, in our view, case is made out for condonation of delay.


delay is condoned.




Admit.









Tarkeshwar Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








M.A.No 1438 of 2017




grant of disability pension, it being a recurring cause of action, in

our view, case is made out for condonation of delay.


delay is condoned.




Admit.









YPS Chauhan Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


Objection filed today in court is taken on record.

Let reply to objection be filed within two weeks.






Ashok Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



Learned counsel for the Applicant prays for dismissal of the

case as withdrawn submitting that on account of inadvertence,

certain incorrect facts have come to be mentioned in the O.A.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not object to

dismissal of the O.A as withdrawn.

In view of the above, the case is dismissed as withdrawn

with liberty to learned counsel for the Applicant to file fresh O.A.






Versus





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

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


Learned counsel for the respondents prays for short time to

file objection.

List this case on 29.11.2017 in order to enable the learned

counsel for the respondents to file objection.




M.A. No. 1465 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1816 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Rambirkchh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


M.A.No 1465 of 2017



Since the controversy involved in this O.A pertains to grant

of pensionary benefits relating to the rank of Naib Subedar, it

being a recurring cause of action, in our view, case is made out

for condonation of delay.


delay is condoned.




Admit.







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

Rajbir Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








As prayed, two weeks’ time is granted to file reply to the

objection.





M.A. No.1604 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Narendra Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

Shri Ashish Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


As prayed, four weeks’ time is granted to file objection.

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






Nagendra Prasad Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


As prayed, two weeks’ time is granted to file objection.


List this case on 19.12.2017 for admission





Krishna Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri S.N. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


As prayed, let objection be filed by tomorrow.






Vinod Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








As prayed, two weeks’ time is granted to file objection.


List this case on 04.01.2018 for admission





Surendra Singh Verma Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





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



Learned counsel for the respondents states that the

petitioner has not furnished the required documents. Learned

counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that he has

not been furnished list of required documents.

Let a copy of the order passed be supplied to the learned

counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day with

regard to incorrect name of wife and her date of birth.





O.A. No. 304 of 2017

Murari Lal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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


Learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to

comply with the order of the Tribunal dated 27.09.2017.



Form No. 4



O.A. No. 421 of 2017

Satendra Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








Counter affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record. Let

rejoinder affidavit be filed within a week.





O.A. No. 41 of 2015

Parmjit Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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


The case is directed to be listed on 29.11.2017 for further

hearing in order to enable learned counsel for the respondents to

answer certain queries bearing on the case.




T.A. No. 572 of 2010 Along with T.A. No. 573 of 2010 & T.A. No. 633 of 2010

HCS Rautela Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





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

and Shri Sushil Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


This case required production of original documents of

court of inquiry for perusal of the Bench which the learned

counsel for the respondents have not produced despite repeated

orders by the Court.

List this case on 30.11.2017 as a last opportunity for

production of the original documents in terms of the earlier order

alongwith connected cases.




T.A. No. 633 of 2010 Along with T.A. No. 635 of 2010 & T.A. No. 572 of 2010

Upendra Singh Chauhan Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus






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










Form No. 4



T.A. No. 635 of 2010 with T.A. No. 1479 of 2017 Along with T.A. No. 633 of 2010 & T.A. No. 572 of 2010

Anil Joshi Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus


















O.A. No. 123 of 2010

Durgawati Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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


Learned counsel for the respondents that the

supplementary counter affidavit which was required to be filed, is

ready and shall be filed during the course of the day. In case the

SCA is filed during the course of the day, the same shall be

taken on record.

Learned counsel for the Applicant shall file reply to SCA

within one week.






Gupteshwar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








Learned counsel for the Applicant prays for and is granted

a day’s time.





O.A. No. 145 of 2013 with M.A. No. 1897 of 2017 & M.A. No. 1814 of 2016

Satendra Singh Pal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



As prayed by learned counsel for the Applicant, list this

case on 29.11.2017 for hearing.




O.A. No. 135 of 2014

Rajendra Pratap Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri A.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


Shri D.C. Lohumi, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6

is reported to be ill.





O.A. No. 275 of 2014

Darshan Kumar Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus







respondents, assisted by Lt Commander Seema Chaudhary,

OIC Legal Cell.

OIC Legal Cell who appears for the Navy submits that she

has been recently assigned the duties to prosecute the cases in

this Tribunal on behalf of the Navy and she is not possessed of

the original documents required by the Court today.

Costs imposed by two different orders have also not been

deposited as yet.

She undertakes to deposit the costs (10000 + 5000) at the

earliest in observance of the orders of the Court.

In view of the above, we would like to express our anguish

at the non serious handling of this case by respondents and for

unnecessarily dragging this case for 3 years and direct the

respondents to produce the entire record including the order of

the Union of India, Ministry of Defence of the year 1975 in terms

of earlier order dated 31.05.2017.

The learned counsel for the respondents shall also explain

and give specific reply as to why though the Applicant has been

paid disability pension but has not been paid service element

citing certain Rules and Regulations or certain Navy order.

It shall be open to the respondents to file supplementary

affidavit to explain their conduct.





O.A. No. 15 of 2016

Zile Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








List this case for hearing on 05.12.2017 on which date the

learned counsel for the respondents shall produce the original

record including medical documents pertaining to the Applicant

for perusal of the Bench.




O.A. No. 187 of 2016

Ram Autar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Harshvardhan, Ld. Counsel for the applicant



The case of the Applicant is that on paper, the Applicant

has been promoted as Lt Col while the fact remains that no

Gazette notification has been issued showing that the Applicant

has retired holding the rank of Lt Col.


granted two weeks’ time to do the needful for correction of record

and for issuance of Part II orders and Gazette notification

indicating therein that the Applicant has retired holding the rank

of Lt Col (TS) with all consequential benefits.

List this case on 14.12.2017 for hearing/orders.




O.A. No. 282 of 2016

Varun Kumar Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



Counter affidavit filed is taken on record. Let rejoinder

affidavit be filed within one week.





O.A. No. 322 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2048 of 2017, M.A. No. 1719 of 2017, M.A. No. 1612 of 2017, M.A. No. 1611 of 2017 &

1610 of 2017 Along with C.A. No. 02 of 2017

Hari Shankar Tripathi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Applicant in person and Dr. Shailendra Sharma

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

Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Written arguments filed on behalf of the Applicant is taken

on record.

Heard the Applicant and learned counsel for the

respondents


Judgment reserved.

Written arguments if any on behalf of the respondents,

may be filed by tomorrow.




O.A. No. 153 of 2017


Versus






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


As prayed, a week’s time is allowed to file rejoinder

affidavit.

List for hearing on 08.12.2017.




O.A. No. 187 of 2017

Ravendra Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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




Let original record be produced for perusal of the Bench on

the date fixed.




T.A. No. 38 of 2011 with M.A. No. 1770 of 2017

Ashwani Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus








As prayed, list this case for further hearing on 28.11.2017.




T.A. No. 87 of 2016

Yuvraj Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus






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


Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted

two weeks’ further time to file rejoinder affidavit.





O.A. No. 219 of 2016

Gp Capt Ajay Gaur Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





List this case for re - hearing on 29.11.2017

(Air Marshal BBP Sinha) (Justice D.P. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) BLY/-




Brij Bahadur Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajiv Pandey on behalf


in the cause list.

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




time is granted to file objection on application for condonation of


within one week thereafter.


Meanwhile respondents may also file counter affidavit and

shall produce records on the date fixed.




O.A. No. 574 of 2017

Pramod Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed by Shri Kaushik Chatterjee on



Present : Shri Virendra Prasad, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Kaushik Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel for the


List the case on 13.12.2017 to enable Ld. Counsel for the

respondents to show cause as to why the statutory

representation submitted by the applicant has not been decided

as yet.





Dinesh Chandra Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Memo of appearance filed by Shri Amit Jaiswal on behalf


in the cause list.

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



Four weeks’ further time is granted to respondents to

show cause as to why the order of the Tribunal dated

07.04.2017 has not been complied with. Ld. Counsel for the

respondents on the basis of instructions received submits that

PPO has been issued.






In re: O.A. No. 183 of 2017

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

Versus Smt Savitri Devi Widow of Dina Nath Mani Tripathi Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant




Present : Shri Mohd Zafar Khan, Ld. Counsel for the applicant-

respondent, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

M.A. No. 2073 of 2017



Application has been preferred after lapse of statutory period. It is

well settled law that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the

delay in the matter.





Since the application for condonation of delay has already

been rejected, in consequence thereof, the application for leave to

appeal is also rejected.





In re: O.A. No. 270 of 2017

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

Versus Kali Prasad Sharma Respondent-Applicants By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant




Present : Shri Mohd Zafar Khan, Ld. Counsel for the


Cell.

M.A. No. 2076 of 2017



Application has been preferred after lapse of statutory period. It is

well settled law that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the

delay in the matter.





Since the application for condonation of delay has already

been rejected, in consequence thereof, the application for leave to

appeal is also rejected.




T.A. No. 06 of 2017

Smt Urmila Devi Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present : None for the petitioner and Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC

Legal Cell.

Issue notice to the petitioner to engage a counsel or make

alternative arrangement to pursue the case. Petitioner shall

also supply Bench copy of the case.






Nar Singh Bahadur Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








Ld. Counsel for the respondents Dr. Shailendra Sharma

Atal submits that cost shall be deposited during the course of the

day. However, records show that order of the Tribunal under

execution was passed on 07.09.2015. Time was granted

repeatedly but the respondents have not complied with the order.

On 11.09.2017, we had granted further time to comply with the

order, subject to payment of cost of Rs 25,000/- but even then

the order is yet to be complied with. Again on 23.10.2017 further

time was granted for compliance of the Tribunal’s order, subject

to payment of cost of Rs 30,000/- with the observation that it

shall be recovered from the officers who are negligent and

responsible for non-compliance of the Tribunal’s order within the

time stipulated and copy of the order was also directed to be

sent to GOC-in-C, Central Command, Lucknow as well as OIC

Records for compliance.

It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the

matter is pending for final adjudication before the Ministry of

Defence. We have been informed by the Ld. Counsel for the

respondents that from the Record Office the recommendation

has been sent to Ministry of Defence only before two weeks from

today. What the Record Office was doing for the last three years

is not understandable.

It shall be appropriate that Chief of the Army Staff (COAS)

should hold an inquiry and fix accountability in the matter so that

the person who has been negligent or kept the matter pending

may be called up and may be issued notice for non-compliance

of the order.

Needless to say, we propose to issue a notice to Record

Office in case the order is not complied with within three weeks

from today. OIC Records Fatehgarh shall file his personal

affidavit within three weeks pointing out under what

circumstances the order under execution has not been complied

with despite elapse of more than two years and why the Record

Office has sent the matter to the Ministry of Defence for

compliance recently, after such an inordinate delay. In case no

affidavit is filed by OIC Records, he shall appear in person to

explain the position. Whether the Record Office is suffering from

incompetence or indifference while dealing the matters of retired

members of the Armed Forces, is a serious question and needs

to be looked at by the Army.


Copy of the present order shall be supplied to Ld. Counsel

for the parties today itself on payment of usual charges.





Ram Sewak Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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



This is an application for execution of order of this Tribunal

dated 28.09.2012 passed in O.A. No. 393 of 2012. On

22.09.2017 a stop order was passed granting three weeks’ and

no more time to comply with the order of the Tribunal.

The controversy relates to payment of pension of the rank

of Naib Sub having been granted the honorary rank of Naib Sub.

Inspite of the earlier stop order four weeks’ further time was

granted to the respondents to comply with the order of the

Tribunal dated 28.09.2012 subject to payment of cost of Rs

25,000/-, which was directed to be deposited in the Registry and

to be released in favour of the applicant through cheque

immediately thereafter.

Again Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal submits that he has not

received any instruction in spite of the communication of the

order. On the other hand the defence set up by the respondents

is that there was no communication on behalf of the applicant in

respect of the aforesaid order. However, records show that even

though the present application has been filed after an inordinate

delay of five years in 2017 but the order of the Tribunal has not

been complied with. However, Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell

has stated that order of the Tribunal shall be complied with

immediately by the JAG Branch. There is no justification for

whatsoever reason that the order under execution has not been

complied with even after five years of its passing in the matter of

a retired member of the Army, who has served the nation upto

the rank of Havildar and granted Hony rank of Naib Sub, which is

a sorry state of affairs.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta

makes a statement that the payment of arrears of OROP

applicable with effect from 01.01.2006 has also not been made

to the applicant. Respondents shall expedite receipt of

instructions in this regard and file reply as to why the arrears

have not been paid.

Subject to payment of cost of Rs 10,000/- we defer the

hearing for 12.12.2017.

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

parties today itself on payment of usual charges.





Raghvendra Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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


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

case on 08.12.2017 to enable Ld. Counsel for the respondents

to submit compliance report.





Anil Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus








As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, four

weeks’ further time is granted to show cause as to why the

order of this Tribunal dated 18.01.2017 has not been complied

with.






Lt Col Vinod Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





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



A statement has been made at Bar by OIC Legal Cell that

the Government sanction has been accorded in pursuance to

order of the Tribunal dated 25.04.2017, a copy of which has

been provided to the petitioner.


further time is allowed to submit compliance report.







Yogendra Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri V.R. Chaubey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant



As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant, a week’s

further time is allowed to file reply to the objection filed by the

respondents.






Ganga Sagar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Rakesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the



Replication filed by the applicant is taken on record.

Though the delay is inordinate, since the controversy

involves a recurring cause of action for payment of disability

pension, in view of the settle proposition of law the petition is

admitted.



applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter.






Jai Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Krishna Lal, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant



Objection on application for condonation of delay filed by

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

applicant may file replication with two weeks.







Kishan Bahadur Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Birendra Singh Singraur, Ld. Counsel for the



M.A. No. 636 of 2017

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

This is an application for condonation of delay in

preferring the O.A. The applicant has attained the age of

superannuation on 31.08.2011. After retirement he submitted

representation for re-employment for two years. However

present application has been filed after five years from the date

of superannuation. Now filing a petition after superannuation of

five years for re-employment of two years at the face of record

seems to be not maintainable. Otherwise also the reason

assigned by the applicant does not seem to be sufficient for

condonation of delay. The reasons assigned by the applicant

are vague and do not meet the requirement of law laid down by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh

and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 685. In Balwant Singh

(supra) their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down

certain guidelines with regard to condonation of delay since this

petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of about eight

years from the date of judgment of Rajpal Singh (supra).

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

perused the records. In M.A. No. 1952 of 2015 B.D. Prajapati

vs. Union of India & Ors, we have relied upon the judgment of

Balwant Singh (supra) while deciding the controversy with

regard to condonation of delay. The relevant portion of the

aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-

“It must be kept in mind that whenever a law is enacted by the legislature, it is intended to be enforced in its proper perspective. It is an equally settled principle of law that the provisions of a statute, including every word, have to be given full effect, keeping the legislative intent in mind, in order to ensure that the projected object is achieved. In other words, no provisions can be treated to have been enacted purposelessly. Furthermore, it is also a well settled canon of interpretative jurisprudence that the Court should not give such an interpretation to provisions which would render the provision ineffective or odious. Once the legislature has enacted the provisions of Order 22, with particular reference to Rule 9, and the provisions of the Limitation Act are applied to the entertainment of such an application, all these provisions have to be given their true and correct meaning and must be applied wherever called for. If we accept the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant that the Court should take a very liberal approach and interpret these provisions (Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act) in such a manner and so liberally, irrespective of the period of delay, it would amount to practically rendering all these provisions redundant and inoperative. Such approach or interpretation would hardly be permissible in law. Liberal construction of the expression `sufficient cause' is intended to advance substantial justice which itself presupposes no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant, to whom want of bona fide is imputable. There can be instances where the Court should condone the delay; equally there would be cases where the Court must exercise its discretion against the applicant for want of any of these ingredients or where it does not reflect `sufficient cause' as understood in law. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 2nd Edition, 1997] The expression `sufficient cause' implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The word `sufficient' means adequate enough, as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. It embraces no more than that which provides a plentitude which, when done, suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the light of existing circumstances and when viewed from the reasonable standard of practical and cautious men. The sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an excusable one. These provisions give the Courts enough power and discretion to apply a law in a meaningful manner, while assuring that the purpose of enacting such a law does not stand frustrated. We find it unnecessary to discuss the instances which would fall under either of these classes of cases. The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law



Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]

15. We feel that it would be useful to make a reference to the judgment of this Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom (supra). In this case, the Court, after discussing a number of judgments of this Court as well as that of the High Courts, enunciated the principles which need to be kept in mind while dealing with applications filed under the provisions of Order 22, CPC along with an application under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application for bringing the legal representatives on record. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Court held as under:-

"13 (i) The words "sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation" should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words `sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant."

(ii) In considering the reasons for condonation of delay, the courts are more liberal with reference to applications for setting aside abatement, than other cases. While the court will have to keep in view that a valuable right accrues to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent when the appeal abates, it will not punish an appellant with foreclosure of the appeal, for unintended lapses. The courts tend to set aside abatement and decided the matter on merits. The courts tend to set aside abatement and decide the matter on merits, rather than terminate the appeal on the ground of abatement.

(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation.

(iv) The extent or degree of leniency to be shown by a court depends on the nature of application and facts and circumstances of the case. For example, courts view delays in making applications in a pending appeal more leniently than delays in the institution of an appeal. The courts view applications relating to lawyer's lapses more leniently than applications relating to litigant's lapses. The classic example is the difference in approach of courts to applications for condonation of delay in filing an appeal and applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal after rectification of defects.

(v) Want of "diligence" or "inaction" can be attributed to an appellant only when something required to be done by him, is not done. When nothing is required to be done, courts do not expect the appellant to be diligent. Where an appeal is admitted by the High Court and is not expected to be listed for final hearing for a few years, an appellant is not expected to visit the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position nor keep checking whether the contesting respondent is alive. He merely awaits the call or information from his counsel about the listing of the appeal.

We may also notice here that this judgment had been followed with approval by an equi-bench of this Court in the case of Katari Suryanarayana (supra).”





In view of the above the application for condonation of

delay is dismissed. In consequence thereto the O.A. is also

rejected.





Kishan Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : None for the Applicant and Ms Anju Singh, Ld.

Counsel for the Respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC

Legal Cell.

Shri Nishant Verma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is

reported to be out of station.

In the interest of justice, list the case on 25.01.2018 for

orders.





Bhim Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld. Counsel for the

Applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the


Controversy relates to grant of pension to the rank of Naib

Sub, which is a recurring cause of action. Accordingly, delay is

condoned.

Admit.



applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within next one week.


Ld. Counsel for the respondents shall also produce the

records on the date fixed.





Azaz Noor Khan Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

and Shri A.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, assisted


Objection filed by the respondents is taken on record. The

applicant may file replication within two weeks.






Mahananda Rath Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






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



further time is granted to file replication.





M.A No. 1173 of 2017 In re: T.A. No. 690 of 2010

Tikam Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus








Cost has been deposited and receipt filed thereof is taken

on record.

Affidavits have been exchanged.






Shanti Swaroop Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Smt Poonam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri A.K. Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,



Applicant may file replication within two weeks’.






Raj Kumar Chaturvedi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri H.N. Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

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


Controversy relates to payment of disability pension,

which inhibits in itself a recurring cause of action.

The delay is accordingly condoned.

Admit.

As prayed, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is granted

three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit to which Ld. Counsel

for the applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within next two

weeks.






Purna Bahadur Rana Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Veer Raghav Chaubey, Ld. Counsel for the






file replication within next one week.






Shiwaji Yadav Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus








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

further time is allowed to file replication to which Ld. Counsel for

the applicant may file replication within next two weeks.





M.A. No. 1424 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1786 of 2017 In re: O.A No. Nil of 2017

Urba Datt Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Ms Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by



further time is allowed to file replication.






Ram Nirekhan Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri J.N. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Ms Amrita Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,





file replication within one week.






Nitesh Kumar Tiwari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Ravi Shankar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the



As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, a week’s

time is granted to file objection on application for condonation of







M.A. No.1458 of 2017 with M.A. No. 2023 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

Avadh Narain Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

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



further time is granted to file replication.






Om Prakash Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present : Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh Chauhan, Ld. Counsel

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


As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, a week’s



file replication within next one week.





O.A. No. 263 of 2014

Ishwar Prasad Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





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

and Ms Deepti P. Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Objection on amendment application filed by the

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

may file replication within one week.





O.A. No. 103 of 2017

Vishwa Jeet Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus









further time is granted to file counter affidavit to which Ld.

Counsel for the applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within next

one week.





O.A. No. 262 of 2017

Sub Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus









taken on record.

Respondent No 6, Sub (Clk) Asit Kumar Das, who

appeared in person submitted that on account of order dated

25.07.2017 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal he has suffered

irreparable loss and injury as has not been granted promotion to

the next higher post though he had been cleared for the same

earlier. He has also filed counter affidavit in this case.

While perusing the order dated 25.07.2017 on the face of

record we noticed that the promotion to the respondent No 6 to

the next higher post was subject to further orders to be passed

by this Tribunal in this case, meaning thereby in case the petition

is allowed then appropriate order may be passed, including

setting aside of the promotion order.

In view of the above, there appears to be ill advice or error

on the part of the respondents in understanding the order passed

by the Tribunal. Accordingly, subject to orders to be passed by

this Tribunal, it shall be open to the respondents to promote the

respondents No 6 on the next higher post, in case he is

otherwise eligible. The respondents shall also ensure that

respondent No 6 would not suffer loss of seniority due to this

wrong interpretation of AFT order dated 25.07.2017.

As prayed, Ld. Counsel for the applicant may file rejoinder

affidavit within two weeks.

It shall be open to the respondent No 6 to engage some

counsel or to make a request to JAG Branch to argue his case.


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

parties today itself on payment of usual charges.


Form No. 4 {See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES ...aftlko.up.nic.in/C1 Daily Order/c1...

Documents

Transcript of Form No. 4 {See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES ...aftlko.up.nic.in/C1 Daily Order/c1...