Armed Forces Tribunal

Daily order 22.03.2017 in MA-13-2017 on 22 March 2017

Cites 0, Cited by 0

IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL

REGIONAL BENCH, GUWAHATI.

M.A. 13 of 2017.

(In OA 12/2017.)

JC- 549701H

Ex-Nb Sub L Shyama,

Vill New Lamka, Churachandpur,

P.O. Churachandpur,

Dist. Churachandpur, Manipur.

…..Applicant.

By legal practitioners

for Applicant.

Mrs Rita Devi,

Mr. AR Tahbildar.

-Versus-

1.Union of India

Rep. by the Secretary,

Ministry of Defence,

Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-11.

2. Records, The Assam Reiment,

PIN (ARMY) 900332, C/o 99 APO.

3. Additional Directorate General,

Personnel Services, PS-4(d),

Adjutant General`s Branch,

IHQ of MOD (Army), DHQ, P.O. New Delhi.

4. The Principal Controller of Defence Acconts (Pension), Allahabad, Pin- 211014, Uttar Pradesh.

…….Respondents

By legal practitioners

for Respondents.

Mr. Chandra Barua, CGSC.

PRESENT

HON`BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY, MEMBER (J)

HON`BLE VICE ADMIRAL MP MURALIDHARAN, MEMBER (A)

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER

22.3.2017

(By B.P.Katakey,J.)

Heard Mr. AR Tahbildar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Chandra Barua, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel assisted by Col Anand, OIC, Legal Cell, Guwahati appearing for the respondents.

-2-

2. The applicant has filed this M.A. seeking condonation of delay contending, inter alia, that since the claim for disability element of the pension in the O.A. is based on continuing cause of action, the delay needs to be condonned.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the repondents, on the other hand, submits that since the applicant has failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause in filing the O.A., the delay may not be condonned.

4. The claim of the aplicant in the O.A. is for grant of disability element of the pension, which is based on continuing cause of action, and hence we are of the considered opinion that the M.A. needs to be disposed of with the observation that in the event the applicant is found to be entitled to the claim made in the O.A., the arrear may be restricted for a period of 3 (three) years preceding the date of filing of the O.A.

5. M.A. is accordingly disposed of.

MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Nath.

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead