Form No. 4 ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL ...aftlko.up.nic.in/C2 Daily Order/C2 Order 2016/c2-Order Sheets 18 Jul... · file replication, if any, to the amended copy

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

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

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

Vikas Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

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

Notes of the Registry

Orders of the Tribunal

20.07.2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A)

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

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

respondents, assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal

Cell.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents has vehemently

opposed the Amendment Application submitting that the O.A.

was filed in the year 2013 and no plausible explanation is

forthcoming why the order dated 18.09.2011 passed by the

Chief of Air Staff was not impugned at that time.

From a perusal of the record, it transpires that while

filing the O.A., the Applicant had not impugned the order

passed by Chief of Air Staff dated 18.09.2011 which was

communicated to the Applicant by means of letter dated

21.05.2012. The crux of submission advanced by learned

counsel for the Applicant is that it was an inadvertent mistake

as a result of which he could not impugn the said order while

filing the O.A. Of course, the order was very well within the

knowledge of the Applicant but the same was not impugned

while preferring the O.A. However, the fact remains that

unless the order of discharge is impugned, there is no

purpose to impugn the other co-related orders and for the

cause of substantial justice, there is no option left except to

allow the Application for amendment.

Accordingly, we allow the amendment Application,

permit the Applicant to carry out the amendment within a

week attended with direction that he may file amended copy

of the O.A within two weeks from today. The respondents may

file replication, if any, to the amended copy within four weeks

next thereafter. Rejoinder affidavit thereto may be filed within

two weeks next thereafter.

List this case peremptorily on 19.09.2016 for hearing.

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



O.A. No. 134 of 2015 Rajeev Moitra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: Shri J.N. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the



Cell.

Heard Learned Counsel for the Parties.

Arguments concluded.

Judgment reserved.




R.A. No. 28 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 109 of 2012 Raj Kumar Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






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

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

This is an application for Review of the order dated

27.01.2016 passed in O.A 109 of 2012.

From a close scrutiny, we do not find any ground which

may be held to be an error apparent on the face of the record

within the four corners of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil

Procedure. In any case, power conferred for review does not

permit for de-novo hearing, which the Counsel for the

Applicant intends to do so. There being no error on the face of

record, we do not feel that it is a fit case where the power

should be exercised. The Learned Counsel for the

Respondents rightly submits that the finding has been

recorded after hearing both sides.

Accordingly, the Application for Review lacks force and

is accordingly rejected.


Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 125 of 2013 Abhishek Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant








Cell.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents prays for time.

As prayed, list this case on 18.08.2016 for further

hearing.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 1521 of 2016 Nathun Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant




19.07.2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member (A)

Memo of appearance filed today in Court by Shri

Virendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents is taken on record. Let the name of Shri Virendra

Singh be shown as counsel for the respondents when the

case is next listed.

Present: None for the Applicant and Shri Virendra Singh,

learned counsel for the respondents, assisted by Col Kamal

Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is

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

condonation of delay. Replication if any may be filed within


List this on 13.09.2016 for disposal of the Application for

condonation of delay/admission.

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

Form No. 4



M.A. No. 1522 of 2016

Shiwu Prasad Bari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Memo of appearance filed today in Court by Shri Anurag

Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents is

taken on record. Let the name of Shri Anurag Mishra be

shown as counsel for the respondents when the case is next

listed.

Present: Shri S.G. Singh, Learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Shri Anurag Mishra, learned counsel for the


Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is


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


List this case for orders/admission/disposal of M A No

1522 of 2016 on 13.09.2016.




M.A. No. 1523 of 2016 Vidhata Prasad Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Memo of appearance filed today in Court by Shri Rajesh

Kumar Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents is taken on record. Let the name of Shri Rajesh

Kumar Singh Chauhan be shown as counsel for the

respondents when the case is next listed.

Present: Shri S.G. Singh, Learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh Chauhan, learned

counsel for the respondents, assisted by Col Kamal Singh,

OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the Respondents prays for and is


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


List this case on 13.09.2016 for

orders/admission/disposal of M.A No. 1523 of 2016.


Form No. 4



EX-A. No. 73 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 183 of 2015 Hari Krishna Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

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




Present: Col (Retd) Ashok Kumar & Shri Rohit Kumar,

Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Shri Yogesh

Kesarwani, Learned Counsel for the respondents, assisted by

Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents has stated across

the bar that in compliance of the order passed by this

Tribunal, the government has already passed orders for

reinstatement of the Applicant and now it is for the Applicant

to resume the duties. A copy of the order has been provided

by the learned counsel for the respondents to the learned

counsel for the Applicant.

In view the above, since order of the Tribunal has been

complied with, Ex. Application No 73 of 2016 filed in OA no

183 of 2015 is rendered otiose and is rejected as having

become infructuous with liberty to the Applicant to report and

resume the duties forthwith in compliance of the order passed

by the Govt.




M.A. No. 942 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1103 of 2016 Hari Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus Union of India & Others Respondent By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-applicant




Present: Shri R. Chandra, Learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Learned Counsel for the


According to the office report, objection to the

Application for condonation of delay has already been filed

and kept on record. Accordingly, the objection is taken on

record. Reply if any, may be filed within three weeks next

thereafter.

List this case for orders/admission/disposal of M.A No.

2143 of 2015 on 17.08.2016.




M.A. No. 424 of 2016 with M.A. No. 425 of 2016, M.A. No. 937 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 579 of 2010

Harish Chandra Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





Present: Shri Dinesh Mishra, Learned Counsel for the

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

the respondents, assisted by Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal

Cell.

It is informed that objection has already been filed which

is kept on record. It is accordingly taken on record. Reply to

objection if any may be filed within three weeks.

List this case on 18.08.2016 for

admission/orders/disposal of M.A No 424 of 2016.


Form No. 4



M.A. No. 644 of 2016 with M.A. No. 964 of 2016 Patil Deepak Gulab Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: Shri D.K. Kashyap, Learned Counsel for the

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


This is an Application filed by the Application under

section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act for the relief of

setting aside the order of discharged which was passed while

the applicant was serving in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

The Applicant belongs to State of Maharashtra where he is

residing at his native place after discharge.

In view of the above, prima facie, no cause of action

seems to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal

situated at Lucknow.

Hence O.A is rejected being not maintainable with

liberty to approach the appropriate forum.




O.A. No. 48 of 2016 Pinky Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





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

applicant and Shri Virendra Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


Learned counsel for the Respondents prays for and is

granted four weeks’ further time to file counter affidavit.

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

thereafter.

List this case on 30.08.2016 for orders.




T.A. No. 9 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1396 of 2016 Shashi Kant Jha Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





Present: Col (Retd) Ashok Kumar & Shri Rohit Kumar,

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri A.K. Sahu, Ld.

Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Col Kamal Singh,

OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed by learned counsel for the Applicant, list this

case on 25.07.2016.

On the date fixed, learned counsel for the respondents

shall come fully prepared to argue the case.


Form No. 4



O.A. No. 327 of 2011 with O.A. No. 432 of 2012 & M.A. No. 2037 of 2015

Naresh Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: Applicant in person and Mrs. Appoli

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

Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

Applicant who appears in person, seeks adjournment on

the ground of absence of his counsel namely Shri

P.N.Chaturvedi.

List this case on 17.08.2016 for further hearing.


Form No. 4



O.A. No. 432 of 2012 Ajay Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





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


OIC Legal Cell.



P.N.Chaturvedi.

List this case on 17.08.2016 for further hearing.




O.A. No. 519 of 2012 Yogendra Kumar Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: Shri V.P. Pandey, Learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Shri Kaushik Chattarji, Ld. Counsel for the


Let original record including copy of the show cause and

reply received thereto if any be produced on the next date of

listing.

List this case for hearing on 16.08.2016.


Form No. 4



O.A. No. 106 of 2014 Maya Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: Shri K.K. Shukla, Learned Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the


Cell.

Case called out in revised list but there is no

appearance for the Applicant. Shri Amit Jaiswal who appeared

for the respondents, vehemently opposed the O.A.

In view of the above, The O.A is accordingly rejected for

want of prosecution.

Interim order if any shall stand vacated.




O.A. No. 308 of 2015 Bimay Kumar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: Shri Krishna Lal, Learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Shri Kaushik Chattarji, Ld. Counsel for the


Counter affidavit filed today be taken on record. Reply to

counter affidavit if any may be filed within three weeks next

thereafter.

List this case for hearing on 16.08.2016.


Form No. 4



R.A. No. 29 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 73 of 2011 Om Prakash Rai Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: Applicant in person and Shri Shyam Singh, Ld.


OIC Legal Cell.



P.N.Chaturvedi.

List this case on 17.08.2016 for hearing.




M.A. No. 1519 of 2016 Subodh Verma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: Dr. R.S. Pande, Learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Mrs. Appoli Srivastava, learned counsel for the


Mrs. Appoli Srivastava, Ld. Counsel appearing for

respondents prays for and is granted one week’s time to file

objection on application for condonation of delay.

Applicant may file replication, if any, within next three

days.

List the case on 27.7.2016 for orders.

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



O.A. No. 155 of 2016

Brig HMS Chatwal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: Shri Indra Sen Singh, Learned Counsel for the

petitioner and Shri V.P.S. Vats, learned counsel for the


Grievance of the applicant is that during pendency of

disciplinary proceedings, respondent no. 4 i.e. Initiating Officer

initiated ACR entry for the period Jul 11 to Jun 12 without

seeking any permission from the higher authority in violation

of para 32 of Army Order 45/2001/MS.

The controversy requires adjudication.

Admit.

As prayed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, six

weeks’ time is granted to file counter affidavit.

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

for the applicant within next two weeks thereafter.

Let notice be issued to respondent No 4 who file counter

affidavit within the next date of listing.

List the case on 19.09.2016 for orders.




O.A. No. 165 of 2016 Ajit Kumar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: Shri S.P. Singh, Learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Shri S.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the


The applicant is aggrieved with the impugned order of

discharge which according to Ld. Counsel for the applicant

has been passed on various grounds.

Admit.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents may file counter

affidavit within six weeks.

Applicant may file rejoinder affidavit, if any, within next

two weeks.

List on 19.09.2016 for orders.

Question with regard to issue notices to private

respondents 7,8 and 9 shall be considered after receipt of

counter affidavit filed by official respondents.




M.A. No. 1501 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1502 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 156 of 2009

Ajani Kumar Tripathi Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

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





Petitioner and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Learned Counsel for

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

M. A. No. 1501 of 2016

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing application

for grant of leave to appeal in T.A. No. 156 of 2009. Admittedly, the

application is time barred and has been moved beyond statutory period.

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay under the Armed

Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. It is well settled proposition of law that the

Tribunal is not empowered to condone delay in moving application for

leave to appeal. Accordingly application for condonation of delay in

moving application for grant of leave to appeal is not maintainable and is

rejected.

M.A. No. 1502 of 2016

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

filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. Application for

condonation of delay has been rejected.

In consequence there of the application for leave to appeal is also

rejected.




M.A. No. 1916 of 2015 Bal Krishna Tripathi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus Union of India & Others Respondent By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-applicant




Present:Ld. Counsel Shri Ved Prakash holding brief for

Shri SK Singh, Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mrs

Anju Singh, Learned Counsel for the respondents, assisted by

Col Kamal Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

As prayed by Shri Ved Prakash, Ld. Counsel holding

brief for Shri S.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is

granted two weeks’ time for filing replication.





M.A. No. 2117 of 2015 Ram Bahadur Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: Shri V.A. Singh, Learned Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Ashish Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the


Shri V.A. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for

dismissal of M.A. as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

Shri Ashish Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the respondents

vehemently opposed the prayer for withdrawal of M.A.

M.A. No. 2117 of 2015 is dismissed as withdrawn with

liberty to file afresh.

No order as to costs.




M.A. 655 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1223 of 2016 Raj Kumar Verma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the


M.A. No. 1223 of 2016

Affidavit filed in support of application for dismissal of

M.A. is taken on record.

M.A. No. 1223 of 2016 is disposed of accordingly.

M.A. 655 of 2016

List this case on 16.08.2016 to enable Ld. Counsel Ld.

Counsel for the applicant to file reply to objection against

application for condonation of delay in filing the O.A.




M.A. No. 1015 of 2016 Inre M.A. No. 1842 of 2014 Rajesh Kumar Awasthi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant






Applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the


Ld. Counsel for the respondents Shri Namit Sharma

states that objection on condonation of application shall be

filed in the Registry by today itself after serving copy on Ld.

Counsel for the applicant.

Let it be filed today.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant may file response to it

within three weeks.





O.A. No. 393 of 2011 Shyama Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





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


OIC Legal Cell.

List has been revised.

Case called in the revised list in second round after pass

over.

None appeared for the applicant

Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is

present and opposed the O.A.

O.A. is dismissed for non prosecution.

Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.





T.A. No. 120 of 2009 B.G. Gowda Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





Present: None for the applicant Dr. S.N. Pandey, Ld.


OIC Legal Cell.



over.


Dr. S.N. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is

present and opposed the T.A.







T.A. No. 103 of 2012 Sita Ram Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





Present: Shri R. Chandra, Learned Counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


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

on 18.08.2016 for orders.




O.A. No. 214 of 2013

Indra Shekhar Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant





Present: None for the applicant Shri Ashish Saxena, Ld. Counsel

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


Case called in the revised list in second round after pass over.


Shri Ashish Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present

and opposed the O.A.





Before signing the order Shri Veer Raghav Chaubey, Ld. Counsel

for the applicant appeared and pressed the O.A.

List the case on 18.08.2016 for hearing.

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

original documents pertaining to case for perusal of the Bench.

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

arguments, supported with law, if any by the date fixed.




T.A. No. 82 of 2013 Sub Prem Chand Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner





Present: None for the applicant Shri Siddharth Dhaon,

Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Col Kamal

Singh, OIC Legal Cell.



over.


Shri Siddharth Dhaon, Ld. Counsel for the respondents

is present and opposed the T.A.





Documents

Form No. 4 ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL ...aftlko.up.nic.in/C2 Daily Order/C2 Order 2016/c2-Order Sheets 18 Jul... · file replication, if any, to the amended copy