Ex Hav Jagdish Prasad Jilowa vs UOI & Others on 13 October 2025

O R D E R

13.10.2025

MA No 686/2023

1. MA No 686/2023 has been filed by the Applicant for condonation of delay in filing the OA. For the reasons stated in the Application, MA No 686/2023 is allowed.

OA No 436/2023

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 84,000/- towards luggage claim along with interest @ 12% per annum.

3. The brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that after rendering more than 26 years of service, the Applicant was discharged from Service on 30.06.2022 for which he has been granted Disability Pension for life. At the last duty station, ie., 512 Army Base Workshop, Kirkee, he was staying with his family in the Government Married Accommodation allotted to him wef 29.06.2020.

Keeping in view his ensuing discharge from Service on 30.06.2022, the Applicant vacated Government Married Accommodation allotted to him on 05.04.2022 and shifted his family from Kirkee to hometown in Khetri. The Applicant also shifted his household items to home town after taking due approval of the competent authority for transportation of his household goods by civil truck under own arrangement from last duty station (Kirkee) to hometown in Khetri (Rajasthan) under TR Rule 200(A) and preferred luggage claim for Rs. 84,000/- duly supported by the required documents. However, the claim was rejected by the PAO (OR) EME,Secunderabad on the grounds that in terms of Rule 204 of Travel Regulations (TR) 2014, baggage may precede the service personnel not more than two months from the date of retirement. Since the household items were shifted on 05.04.2022, ie., more than two months prior to his discharge from Service on 30.06.2022, sanction of Competent Authority is required to be taken for movement of baggage beyond time specified in Rule 16 and 204 as per the provisions of Appendix XI of TR. The Applicant submits that he was not informed about rejection of his claim by the PAO (OR) EME, Secunderabad which he came to know only through the information sought under RTI. The Applicant has reiterated that he moved his baggage from last duty station to his hometown after taking due approval of the competent authority, therefore, he should not be denied his legitimate dues.

4. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the Applicant moved his baggage on 05.04.2022, ie., more than two months prior to his discharge from Service on 30.06.2022. The movement of baggage beyond time specified in TR Rule 16 and 204 requires approval of the Competent Authority as per the provisions of Appendix XI of TR. The Applicant did not take approval of the Competent Authority for movement of baggage beyond specified timeframe, therefore, his claim was rejected by PAO (OR) EME, Secunderabad with an advice to the Applicant to obtain approval of the Competent Authority. The fact was communicated to the Applicant vide EME Records lettern dt 29.06.2023. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have heard Learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6. It is not in dispute that the Applicant is eligible for claim of luggage from last duty station to home town at the time of discharge under Rule 200(A) of Travel Regulations for the Army, 2014. Luggage claim of the Applicant has been sent to PAO (OR) EME Secunderabad but the same was rejected on the grounds that the approval of the Competent Authority for movement of baggage and household goods prior to two months of his discharge from Service was not taken by the Applicant in terms of Rule 16 and 204 of Travel Regulations for the Army, 2014. The Applicant submits that he was not communicated about rejection of his baggage claim before his discharge from service. The Respondents have submitted that the Applicant was communicated about rejection of his luggage claim vide letter dt 29.06.2022, ie., one day prior to his discharge from service. Seemingly, the letter was not received by the Applicant before his discharge from service. Further, after discharge of JCOs/OR, concerned OIC Records becomes the Commanding Officer of Ex-Servicemen and after discharge of the Applicant, OIC Records should have initiated the case for getting sanction of the Competent Authority for movement of baggage beyond two months of discharge from Service, either at the level of Records itself or through his last unit, ie., 512 Army Base Workshop, Kirkee. Since, the Applicant had moved his baggage by Civil Truck after taking approval of the Competent Authority, he cannot be denied his legitimate due on technical grounds.

7. Taking note of the overall facts and circumstances of the case wherein the Applicant failed to obtain the sanction of the Competent Authority as provided in Travel Regulations 2014, as also the fact that the Applicant moved his baggage by civil truck after taking approval of the competent authority as stated by the Applicant, we direct Respondent No-2 to obtain ex-post-facto sanction of the requisite Competent Authority for movement of baggage prior to two months of his discharge from service in terms of Rule 16 and 204 of Travel Regulations, 2014 and other relevant rules/regulations, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order and, thereafter, pay the luggage claim as entitled to him within a period two months.

8. The OA is disposed off, accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

9. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J) Ssy/-