Ex RfnGD Mahipal Singh vs UOI & Others on 6 March 2026

**ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR**

**5. OA 338/2025 with MA 480/2025**

**No 123970 Rfn/GD Mahipal Singh, 12 Assam Rifles, Now residing at village Disnau, Tehsil Fatehpur, Police Station Lachhman Garh, District Sikar, Rajasthan – 332 401**

**.... Applicant**

**Versus**


- **1. UOI, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi - 110 011**

- **2. The Director General, Assam Rifles, Dte Gen Assam Rifles, Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Post Office Laitkor, District East Khasi Hills, Shillong, Meghalaya – 793 011**

- **3. The Commandant, 12 Assam Rifles, PIN 932 012, c/o 99 APO**

**सत्यमेव जयते**

**.... Respondents**

**For Applicant : Mr. Balawant Singh Shekhawat, Advocate** **For Respondents : Mr. Pyare Lal, Senior Panel Counsel**

**CORAM:**

**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)** **HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)**


**1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA with the following prayers :**

**यतो न्यायः ततो जयः**

**(a) The impugned discharge order dated 02/2/1996, made effective from 29/2/1996, be declared illegal, arbitrary, disproportionate and void ab initio, being passed in violation of mandatory procedural safeguards, statutory rules, and principles of natural justice;**

**(b) The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold that the discharge, having occurred eight months and 18 days prior to completion of 10 years' qualifying service, amounts to a colourable exercise of administrative power to defeat the**

applicant's right to pension under Rule 49 (2) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972;

(c) That the applicant be granted notional continuity in service from the date of discharge, ie, 29/2/1996, until the completion of 10 years' of qualifying service, for the limited purpose of pension entitlement, without claim for reinstatement or back wages; (d) The Respondents be directed to treat the Applicant as having retired voluntarily on completion of qualifying service under Rule 48 (1) (b) read with Rule 49 (2) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and accordingly, grant lifetime service pension, arrears of pension from the notional date of retirement, and consequential benefits, including dearness relief and applicable increments; (e) That the applicant be awarded appropriate compensation, as may be deemed just by this Hon'ble Tribunal, for the mental agony, reputational harm, and financial distress suffered due to wrongful discharge and denial of pension for over two decades; (f) The Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the red ink entries, particularly the fifth red ink entry, which was imposed without a valid summary trial or inquiry, in contravention of Sections 22-24 of the Army Act, 1950, and relevant Assam Rifles provisions.

(g) Declare the entire discharge process, including non service of Show Cause Notice, absence of legal scrutiny, lack of Sector HQ approval, and failure to provide opportunity of hearing, as procedurally and substantively flawed; (h) Direct the Respondents to reconsider the Applicant's pending pension appeal dated 08/8/2024 in light of the humanitarian grounds and contemporary governance directives issued by Lt Gen GK Duggal and Lt Gen PC Nair, Annexures A/7 & 8;

(i) Further orders or directions be passed as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience, including invoking powers of complete justice under Section 14 read with Section 15 of the AFT Act, 2007, and Article 142 of the Constitution of India and (j) As an interim prayer, the applicant submitted that a prima facie strong case exists in his favour, based on gross procedural irregularities, violation of statutory rules, and denial of natural justice. The balance of convenience squarely lies in favour of the applicant, who stands to suffer irreparable injury, including the permanent loss of pensionary benefits and loss of livelihood, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents by grant of interim protection and under the circumstances, he prayed that :

(i) Call for the entire records pertaining to the applicant's premature discharge from the Assam Rifles, including the discharge order, internal communications, noting and proceedings leading to his discharge, for effective adjudication and to ensure transparency and accountability;

(ii) Stay the operation and implementation of the impugned discharge order passed against the applicant, thereby provisionally treating the applicant as being in continued service, for the limited purpose of pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits accruing to the applicant, as the denial of pension and post service benefits due to premature discharge of the applicant just short of qualifying service, which is neither legally sustainable nor morally justified.

2. We have heard the Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondents and perused the material on record.

3. Perusal of record reveals that the applicant was borne on the strength of Assam Rifles – a Paramilitary Force – under the administrative control of Ministry of Home affairs. Therefore, the issue to be decided in this matter is whether this Tribunal has the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate upon the matter.

4. During the course of hearing, while the designated Counsel for the Applicant is not present, nonetheless, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this OA, as this Tribunal has already disposed off similar cases just recently on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the applicant being borne on the strength of Assam Rifles, similar to the applicant herein. The Proxy Counsel for the Applicant does not raise any objection in this regard.

5. The Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondents vehemently opposed the maintainability of this OA as the applicant was discharged from service wef 29/2/1996 from the Assam Rifles under Assam Rifles Manual and not under Army Act or the Rules made thereunder. Moreover, the applicant has also prayed in the OA for grant of pensionary benefits under the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules and not under Pension Regulations for the Army.

6. With regard to jurisdiction of Armed Forces Tribunal, relevant Clause of Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, reads as follows:- ततो जयः **"Applicability of the Act.**

*(1) The provisions of this Act shall apply to all persons subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950).*

*(2) This Act shall also apply to retired personnel subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or the Air Force Act, 1950 (45*

*of 1950), including their dependents, heirs and successors, in so far as it relates to their service matters".*

7. In view of the foregoing and since the applicant was a member of the Assam Rifles and he was dismissed from service under Assam Rifles Manual for his misdemeanors and not under the provisions of Army Act, 1950 or Rules made thereunder, we find that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter and, hence, the OA is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, the Applicant is at liberty to approach any other appropriate forum with his prayer for redressal of his grievances.


8. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

मन्त्रमव जयत

Sd/- XXX

ल अ

Sd/- XXX

**(SANJIV MITTAL)** **MEMBER (A)**

**(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)** **MEMBER (J)**

cda/-