Armed Forces Tribunal

Ex Ris Khurshed Ali vs UOI & Others on 31 August 2026

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR

9.

RA 02/2025 with MA 74/2025 in OA 122/2016

JC-235700WEx Ris Khurshed Ali

…. Applicant

Versus

UOI & Others

…. Respondents

For Applicant

: Ms. Savita Singh, Advocate

For Respondents

: Mr. Anil Bhardwaj, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

O R D E R

31.08.2026

1. Counsel for the applicant has field this Review Application praying for restoration of OA No 122 of 2016 to its original Number and decide the case on its merits as a fresh case.

2. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

Page 1 of 2

3. It is evident from the material on record that based on the statement made by the counsel for the applicant during the course of hearing held on 03/1/2024 that relief sought for by the applicant in this OA had already been granted to the applicant, the OA was disposed off as infructuous by this Tribunal vide Order dated 03/1/2024. However, perusal of letter dated 08/4/2026 issued by the Armoured Corps Records addressed to the office of PCDA (P), PPO Wing, reveals that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 12/12/1972 in the SHC Group ‘Z’ and was discharged from service on 31/12/2002 after rendering thirty years of service. Further since the applicant was discharged from service wef 31/12/2002

2

and as such he is entitled for service pension for Group ‘Y’ in terms of Circular No 430 dated 10/3/2010 issued by the PCDA (P) as the trade of Sowar Horse Cat Rider (SHC) of Armoured Corps was equated to Group ‘D’ (now Group ‘Y’) wef 10/10/1997. Whereas the PPO issued on superannuation of the applicant shows his Group as ‘Z’.

4. In view of the foregoing and since in the PPO dated 13/3/2023 of the applicant, Annexure R/2, issued by PCDA (P), the applicant’s Group has been shown as ‘Z’ instead of Group ‘Y’, the same needs to be corrected by PCDA (P).

5. In view of the foregoing and in the interest of justice, six months’ further time is granted to the Respondents in issuing a correct PPO showing the group of the Applicant as ‘Y’ instead of ‘Z’ and granting related terminal pensionary benefits, as admissible. It is made clear that in case compliance is not done by the stipulated timeframe of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, the applicant shall be entitled to receive a cost of Rs 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) from the Respondents.

6. With the above directions, the RA is disposed off. File be consigned to record.

7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

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.

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