Ex Sub Maj Amilal (Army) vs UOI & Others on 19 August 2025

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

17. **OA 728/2012 with MA 116/2014**

**JC-96321 Ex Sub Maj Ami Lal, S/o Shri Chet Ram, Resident of Village Shalilm Ka Bas, Post Office Badsari Ka Bas, Via Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan**


.... Applicant

- 1. The UOI, through the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi

- 2. Chief of the Army Staff, South Block, Defence HQ, New Delhi

- 3. The PCDA (P), Prayagraj, UP

- 4. The OIC Records, Records The Defence Security Corps, Mill Road, Cannanore – 670 013


.... Respondents

For Applicant

: Ms Anjali Minocha, Proxy for Mr Harish Maan, Advocate

For Respondents

Mr Gajendra Sharma, Advocate

**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 praying for grant of full pensionary benefits to the applicant with effect from 23/12/1992 when he was dismissed from service.

- 2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 01/10/1956 and was discharged from service on 22/12/1965


compassionate grounds. Thereafter, he was re-enrolled in the DSC on 04/6/1966 and was discharged from there on 23/12/1992. Thus, for both the spell of his service, he had completed 35 years of service. While serving in DSC, the Applicant faced disciplinary proceedings for submitting fake Matriculation Certificate vide letter dated 22/6/1991, Annexure A/1. While the applicant submitted reply to the show cause notice issued to him vide letter Annexure A/2, the applicant was ordered to be dismissed from service vide the Order dated 23/12/1992. After his dismissal from service, the applicant made a representation before the Non applicants for grant of pensionary benefits to him as per Rules as the decision regarding fake matriculation certificate is illegal, as such, it is likely to be set aside. The applicant passed Secondary School Examination from the Board of Secondary Examination, Jaipur, Rajasthan in the year 1979, Annexure A/3. While the applicant was in service, the non applicants sought verification of the above certificate and the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan, vide their letter dated 06/1/1990 informed that the record of the applicant was not available with the Board. Thereafter, the Secretary Board of Secondary Examination, Ajmer, Rajasthan vide their letter dated 30/9/1991 informed that the applicant's matriculation certificate is genuine and correct as per the record of the Board, Annexure A4 & 5. From the above, it is clear that the matriculation certificate of the applicant is genuine and he is entitled to pensionary benefits with effect from the date of his discharge from service. In this respect, the applicant made a number of representations and considering them, ultimately, the applicant has been sanctioned 50% pension and gratuity with effect from 23/12/1992, Annexure A/6. Thereafter, the applicant again made an Appeal for grant of remaining 50% of his pension but the decision thereon has not yet been communicated to the applicant. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement and at the outset, took preliminary objection to the OA on the grounds that the applicant is not challenging any impugned order passed by the Respondents and therefore, in the absence of any orders under challenge, the present OA deserves to be dismissed. The prayer of the applicant is not sustainable as the applicant was dismissed from service on account of deliberate concealment of the fact that he had submitted fake Secondary School Certificate as declared by the State Board of Education, Rajasthan. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to get any sympathy as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant was dismissed from service under the provisions of Army Act 20 (1) read with Army Rule 17. Also, since the OA filed by the Applicant seeking relief wef 23/12/1992 is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, keeping in view of the judgment of Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SS Rathore Vs UOI & Ors in AIR 1990 p 10. Respondents further submit that in terms of Para 113 (a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, an individual who is dismissed from Service under the provisions of Army Act is ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of all previous service. In the instant case, the applicant was not entitled for service pension as he was dismissed from service. However, he was granted 50% of service pension and gratuity by the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 04/4/2001 based on a mercy petition submitted by the applicant wef the date of dismissal. Respondents have also submitted that since the OA has been filed after a delay of 21 years, deserves to be dismissed on grounds of latches as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs Pyari Mohan & Ors, AIR 1976 SC 2617, holding the view that submitting repeated representations cannot condone the delay. Further, the facts of alleged passing of Secondary Examination in the year 1979 by the applicant has already been verified by the answering Respondents from the concerned agency who had intimated that the student Ami Lal bearing Registration No 32412 did not appear in the Board Examination in the year 1979. Vide letter dated 23/3/1991 issued by the Secretary, Secondary Board of Examination, Amer, Rajasthan, it has been stated that the Roll Nos allotted in the said examination in the year 1979 started from 300001 onwards which does not tally with the applicant's certificate, Annexure R 3 & 4. Hence, the whole averments made by the applicant are irrelevant, false and liable to be rejected. On receipt of letter dated 30/9/1991 from the Secretary, Board of Secondary Examination, Rajasthan, a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) was sent on temporary duty to ascertain the veracity of the letters said to be issued by the Board of Examination and it was confirmed by them that the said communication did not originate from the Department, Annexure R/5. Hence, the applicant is making false and fabricated statements to bolster his stand by misleading the Hon'ble Court and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

4. We have heard the Counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. It is evident from the record that the applicant had a combined service of 35 years when he was dismissed from service on 23/12/1992 for two spell of service in the Army and in DSC. The applicant was dismissed from service on the charge of submitting fake Secondary School Certificate of State Board of Education, Rajasthan, under the provisions Army Act 20 (1) read with Army Rule 17. From documents placed on record, the charge against the applicant was proved beyond reasonable doubt and it has been buttressed by letter dated 23/3/1991 issued by the Secretary, Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan. While the applicant was not granted any pension in terms of Para 113 (a) of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, having been dismissed from service. However, based on the Mercy Petition submitted by the Applicant, Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, took a considerate view and the applicant was granted 50% Pension and Gratuity wef 23/12/1992. It has also been observed that the letter dated 20/1/1991 and 30/9/1991 issued by the Secondary Education Board confirming the genuineness of the certificate presented by the applicant also turned out to be fake as the Board vide its letter dated 26/2/1991 has denied having issued any such letter declaring genuineness of the certificate. The existence of such letters was also mentioned in the Findings of the Court of Inquiry that had gone into the case of the applicant herein at pp 43-45 of the Reply Statement filed by the Respondents. In view of this and since the case of the applicant has already been deliberated at the Ministry level which granted 50% pension and gratuity to the applicant from the date of his dismissal from service, we find no merit in the prayer of the applicant for grant of full pensionary benefits to the applicant and the plea of the applicant is rejected.


6. We also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than 21 years with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay and, hence, it does not deserve to be entertained. For this reason, the Application relief by the Applicant is totally misconceived and is barred by the doctrine of laches and inordinate delay. In view of the above and in the light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein it is held that a stale claim cannot be revived for grant of Pensionary benefits, the Applicant is not entitled for any additional pensionary benefits. The case is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, in Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.


सत्यमेव जयते

7. In-fine, we find that the Application lacks merit on all counts.

8. The OA is dismissed. No order on costs.

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


(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)


(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

cda/-