Armed Forces Tribunal
Capt Narayan Singh Rathore (Retd) (Army) vs UOI & Others on 25 November 2025
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR
8.
OA 534/2018 with MA 580/2018
Capt Narayan Singh Rathore (Retd) , Resident of Village Dadeu Sutan Singh, District Churu – 331 105, currently residing at Plot No 40, Hari Nagar A, Jhotwara, Jaipur
…. Applicant
Versus
1.
UOI, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, Govt of India, New Delhi
2.
The PCDA (P), Prayagraj, UP
3.
Director General, AOC, Army HQ, New Delhi
…. Respondents
For Applicant
: Ms Vidhi Mitruka, Proxy for
Mr. Umang Gupta, Tanuj Gupta, 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)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
25.11.2025
1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying directing the Respondents to grant Permanent Commission to the Applicant and grant pension since his release from the Army, ie, 15/6/1976 and/or any other service benefits. He has also prayed for holding the action of the Non Applicants to be arbitrary and ultra vires of SAIs 11/S/64 and 3/S/70 and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. While the Respondents have not filed a Reply Statement to the OA. However, they have filed preliminary objection to the MA filed under Section 22
(2) of the AFT Act, 2007 and submitted that the applicant was released from service on 15/6/1976, ie, over 42 years ago after 10 years ofservice in Short Service Commission. No record pertaining to the CRs, his consideration for grant of Permanent Commission is held with them as these documents have been destoyed after mandatory period of retention. The MA has also been filed without any cogent explanation for the delay of 42 years. After release from the Army, the applicant had joined the ONGC soon after his release and worked there from 05/4/1977 to 31/7/200 till his superannuation and post superannuation from the ONGC the applicant preferred this OA and hence, no grievance. Moreover, as has been stated by the applicant, his Statutory Complaint was considered by the Govt of India which was rejected vide Order dated 30/11/1975.
3. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. Perusal of record reveals that the applicant was commissioned in the Army as a Short Service Regular Commission (SSRC) Officer on 24/4/1966 and on completion of ten years of service, he was released from service on 15/6/1976, which was changed to Short Service Commission (SSC). The applicant had submitted a Statutory Complaint for grant of Permanent Commission in the Army, but the same was not acceded to by the Govt of India, vide their letter dated 30/11/1975. Post his release from the Army, the applicant had joined Oil and Natural Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) on 05/4/1977 and he continued to work there till his superannuation on 31/7/2000, ie, for more than two decades. He superannuated from ONGC in the rank of Dy General Manager.
5. Perusal of record further reveals that the applicant had filed this OA on 02/8/2018. Apart from first hearing of the matter on 01/10/2018, neither the applicant himself nor his designated Counsel have attended the subsequent hearings held on 01/8/2024, 22/4/2025 and again on 07/11/2025. Today also, only the proxy counsel for the applicant was present. It clearly shows that the applicant filed this OA just for the sake of filing a petition, that too after more than 18 years of his superannuation from the ONGC, knowing fully well that there is no substance in his petition and probably filed it just for the sake of filing a petition. There is no gainsaying the fact that both the applicant and his designated Counsel have shown no interest/enthusiasm in pursuing the case given the fact that they were erratic in their attendance in the Court whenever the matter was listed for hearing in the past.
6. In view of the foregoing, we find no merit in the OA of the applicant as it was a frivolous Application without any merit.
7. Apart from the above, we also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than 40 years with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay and it does not deserve to be entertained. For this reason, the Application by the Applicant is totally misconceived and is also 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 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.
8. In fine, the OA is dismissed being devoid of merits.
9. No orders on cost. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.
(SANJIV MITTAL)
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)
MEMBER (J)
cda/-