Ex Sub Maj Hony Lt Mairam Ahlawat (Army) vs UOI & Others on 21 August 2025

**O R D E R

21.08.2025**

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA to call for records pertaining to the Board proceedings of the relevant period for grant of Hony rank and scrutinise the marks given to the applicant for its correctness with a view to analyse his comparative merit with a candidate and direct to give additional marks for the entries of Part II order missed out by the Signal Records. Further he has prayed to issue appropriate directions to grant Hony rank of Lieutenant to him wef 26/1/2009 and honorary rank of captain wef 15/8/2009 if his total marks works out to be more than the candidate who met the benchmark to be on the approved list of honorary rank of DPC panel during 26/1/2009 and 145/8/2009. He has also prayed for grant of arrears of pay and allowances during 

service and revise the pension in conformity with his last rank held as also payment of cost of litigation incurred by the applicant.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 24/11/1977 as an Operator in the Corps of Signals and served for 31 years and 281 days and rose upto the rank of Subedar Major. He was discharged from service on 01/9/2009. He had served various sectors. While serving with 2 Mountain Division Signal Regiment, the applicant was awarded Commendation Card of the SO-in-C on 08/2/2008 and also by the Chief of the Army Staff on 15/8/2008, Annexure A/3 & 4. The applicant was granted the honorary rank of Lieutenant post his discharge from service on 26/1/2010. Further, while serving with National Security Guards (NSG), for the period 20/3/1988 to 07/1/1991, the applicant had participated in the operation conducted to rescue Rubaiya Sayeed in Jammu and Kashmir, Operation Black Thunder II in Punjab and the operation against Naxalites in Adilabad, Andhara Pradesh. Besides these, the applicant had also participated in operation carried in Madives, but these duties have not been considered for grant of honorary rank of Lt and Capt to the applicant. The commendation cards issued by the So-in-C and the Chief of the Army Staff and his outstanding Annual Confidential Reports, his service with the 51 SAG and 52 SAG for the period 14/5/1990 to 20/11/1990 have not been found mentioned in the Master Data Sheet, which was pointed out by his then Commanding Officer to Colonel Records vide Demi Official letter dated 02/1/2009, have not been taken into account, thereby, affecting his career progression in terms of granting honorary rank to the applicant. In support of his arguments, the applicant has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Hindustan Development Corporation (1993) 3 SCC 499, in which it was held that if denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of right guaranteed or it is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, then its gross abuse of power of violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same can be questioned on the well known grounds of attracting Article 14 of the Constitution. The court must lift the veil and see whether the decision is violative of the principles of natural justice, warranting interference. Having been aggrieved, the Applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and at the outset, took strong objection to the MA No 68/2016 filed for condonation of delay of six years and six months involved in filing the OA in that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 24/11/1997 and was discharged from service on 01/9/2009 on superannuation after completion of 31 years and 281 days of service. The applicant was granted honorary rank of Lieutenant on the occasion of Republic Day 2010. Respondents further submit that as per Para 22 (c) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Tribunal shall not admit an application, in a case where the grievance in respect of which an application is made had risen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal became exercisable under this Act, in respect of the matter to which such orders relates and no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before the High Court. In the instant case, the applicant has filed the OA after a lapse of about seven years of his discharge from service and, hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. To buttress their viewpoint, the Respondents have placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C/Jacob Vs Director of Geology and Mining and Anr, (2008) 10 SCC 115 holding the view that a dead or stale claim is not permitted to be revived and the person who sleeps over his right is not entitled for any indulgence. With regard to the plea of the applicant for grant of honorary rank, the Respondents submit that, in terms of Army HQ letter dated 20/8/1982, the applicant was given two chances for grant of honorary commission before his retirement. Master Sheet in respect of the applicant was prepared based on entries/occurrences exist in the Service Record and forwarded for vetting and signature of the applicant duly countersigned by the officer commanding of the Unit. The service details were checked, signed and countersigned by the applicant himself and the commanding officer, Western Command Signal Regiment as correct with the following discrepancies to be included in the Master Sheet vide their letter dated 15/10/2008 :-

- (a) Para 11 (a) - for FSCA (Sikkim), read FSCA, Jammu and Kashmir for the period 13/2/1984 to 19/3/1988.


(b) Para 16 - For Special Service Medal, W/C Suraksha 20 MDSR 123/04/2006, read Special Service Medal W/C Suraksha 2 MDSR 123/04/2006.

(c) Inclusion of SO-in-C the Chief of the Army Staff Commendation Card and CMFA for the period 08/8/2004 to 10/8/2005.

On scrutiny of Sheet Roll and recommendation forms of the applicant, it was seen that the following details were not found in the recommendation roll on both the occasions, ie, Republic Day and Independence Day 2009, respectively :- (a) Chief of the Army Staff Commendation Card : Entry found entered in Sheet Roll, but was not included in the recommendation Roll.

(b) Service period wef 14/5/1990 to 20/11/1990, the period served with NSG : Occurrences have not been published by NSG and not found endorsed in sheetroll.

(c) Service period wef 19/12/2001 to 25/7/2004, the period served with NCC SR : Occurrence was found published and even endorsed in the sheet roll, however, not included in the Recommendation Roll.

4. The Respondents further submit that record of the relevant entries whether included by means by first and second lot addition/deletion as per policy framed by IHQ of MoD (Army) vide letter dated 16/5/2008 is not available as the relevant correspondence files have been destroyed by burning after its stipulated period of retention by a Board of Officers vide IAFD-901 dated 21/4/2013 in terms of Para 592 to 596 of the Regulations for the Army and Army Order 1/2002/MP. Further, fresh recommendation forms for both the occasions of Republic Day and Independence Day 2009 including all left out parameters of the applicant were resubmitted to IHQ of MoD (Army) vide letters dated 12/3/2016 and 31/3/2016. The case was re-examined at CW-2 Directorate, IHQ of MoD (Army) and it was clarified vide their letters dated 21/3 and 01/4/2016 that the applicant was not granted honorary commission during Republic Day and Independence Day 2009 being low in merit. It was also clarified by the Army HQ that he would have not made it even after including weightage of the above occurrences. Respondents further submit that ACRs and Commendation Cards are not the only basic criteria for judging an individual for award of Honorary commission, but the entire service profile and performance of a JCO during his complete service is taken cognisance of and one single factor, ie, ACRs does not override other inputs. Since the datas pertaining to the applicant were supplied correctly in the Master Sheet and the same was signed by the applicant as correct on 15/10/2008 besides countersigned by his commanding officer, it has to be taken as authentic correctness for all purposes. Moreover, grant of Honorary Commission is not a statutory right of a JCO and an analogy should not be drawn between this and promotion. For consideration of the cases for grant of Honorary commission, the competent authority is the IHQ of MoD (Army) and the Record office is only responsible to provide correct data based on details recorded in the service documents. In view of this, the applicant cannot blame that his case has been considered arbitrarily for grant of honorary commission by the Respondents.

5. We have heard the counsels for the parties at length on multiple hearings and perused the material placed on record.

6. It is seen from the Reply Statement and the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, that the applicant was discharged from service wef 01/9/2009 on superannuation after rendering 31 years and 281 days of service. He was accordingly granted service pension for the qualifying service. As per policy in vogue, name of the applicant was considered twice ~~on the occasion of Republic Day and Independence Day 2009 for grant of Honorary Commission~~, but was not selected being low in merit. Based on the discrepancies pointed out by the applicant about non inclusion of certain points for the service rendered by the applicant in Jammu and Kashmir (NSG tenure) and the award of Commendation Cards of SO-in-C and the Chief of the Army Staff, the case of the applicant was taken up with the concerned Directorate at Army HQ, which after scrutiny, clarified that the honorary commission was not granted to the applicant being low in merit and it was also clarified that the applicant would not have made to the list even after inclusion of weightage of these occurrences. He was conferred the Honorary rank of Lieutenant post his discharge from service on the occasion of Republic Day 2010. It is also observed that the OA has been filed on 29/01/2016 after a delay of more than six years from the date of superannuation of the applicant.

7. During the course of each hearings, Counsel for the Respondents kept on stating that the case of the applicant for grant of honorary commission has been considered in its entirety and he was not conferred with the honorary rank because his being low in merit based on his overall service profile. They also have reiterated that the applicant has approached the Respondents after a delay of more than seven years by which time the concerned documents have already been destroyed as per extant policy. However, Counsel for the Applicant reiterated time and again that all the parameters of service profile of the applicant have not been accounted for, ipso facto, depriving the applicant of his rightful due. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the applicant has been vigorously pursuing his case from the very beginning and no delay per se has been involved in the issue and despite his concerted efforts, the points legitimately due to be counted included in the Master Sheet had not been taken into account. Counsel for the applicant further asserted that a total number of 47 points had been earned by the applicant on various counts and even claimed 25 points for various operations conducted by the National Security Guard during which the applicant was a part of the said security agency and other operations conducted at hostile areas of north east. Counsels for both the parties have also filed Rejoinder and Counter Rejoinder in support of their respective arguments. Counsel for the applicant, in a separate written submission, inter alia, with regard to the contention of the Respondents about the delay involved in approaching the Respondents, submitted that the applicant, had taken up his case with the concerned authorities with his grievances well before his discharge from service vide his letters dated 16/4/2008, 15/10/2008 and 02/1/2009.

8. In view of the foregoing and the apprehension raised by the applicant about his name being left out arbitrarily by the Respondents without taking into account his entire service profile and the points admissible to him, we deem it appropriate to remit 

the case back to the Competent Authority for their reconsideration in this matter. While reconsidering the case of the applicant, the Respondents should scrutinise all the relevant details submitted by the applicant wherein points earned for particular occurrences were not taken into account while deciding on award of Honorary rank of Lieutenant and Captain in the year 2009 and the veracity of such claim of the Applicant. A final decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and the outcome thereof, may be intimated to the applicant accordingly.


1. 9. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

2. 10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

सत्यमेव जयते


(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

cda/-


(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)