Daily order sheet, C1, 26 Oct 2026 on 26 October 2026

1. Memo of Appearance filed by Ms. Amrita Chakraborty, Advocate on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. Her name be shown as Counsel for the respondents when the case is listed next.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Saurabh Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Ms. Amrita Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode. M.A. No. 1222 of 2026

3. Heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. There is delay of 03 months and 29 days in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application. Cause of delay shown in the affidavit annexed with the delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

5. Delay condonation application stands disposed of. O.A. No. 1015 of 2026

6. This original application has been filed for grant of disability element of disability pension. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that applicant’s claim has been wrongly rejected by the respondents.

7. Case needs adjudication.

8. Admit.

9. Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks and is allowed four weeks’ time to file Counter Affidavit in the Registry. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

10. List on 13.05.2027.

(Lt. Gen. Anil Puri) (Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta)

SB/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 1 (Suppl. No. 2)

OA No. 1017 of 2026 with MA No. 1224 of 2026

Ex EA (R) 3 Sasanapuri Trimula

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Manish Kumar Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of Appearance filed by Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, Advocate on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents when the case is listed next.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Manish Kumar Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A. No. 1224 of 2026

3. Heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. There is delay of 19 days in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application. Cause of delay shown in the affidavit annexed with the delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

5. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. O.A. No. 1017 of 2026

6. This original application has been filed for grant of disability element of disability pension. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that applicant’s claim has been wrongly rejected by the respondents.

7. Case needs adjudication.

8. Admit.

9. Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks and is allowed four weeks’ time to file Counter Affidavit in the Registry. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

10. List on 13.05.2027.

(Lt. Gen. Anil Puri) (Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta)

SB/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 1 (Suppl. No. 3)

OA No. 1034 of 2026 with MA No. 1243 of 2026

Ex Sub Maj Ramakant Mishra,

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Parijaat Belaura, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri ………………, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. List is revised.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Parijaat Belarua, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present but on behalf of the respondents, none is present. However, Legal Representative apprised the court that this case is allotted to Dr. Gyan Singh, Advocate but memo of appearance is not on record.

3. In the interest of justice, list this case on 06.11.2026 in supplementary cause list for hearing on admission.

(Lt. Gen. Anil Puri) (Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta)

SB/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 1 (Suppl. No. 4)

Ex-A. No. 336 of 2026 Inre: OA No. 216 of 2025

MWO Sushil Kumar Srivastava (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of Appearance filed by Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents when the case is listed next.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

3. Heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. This is a fresh execution application filed for implementation of order dated 14.05.2026 of this Tribunal passed in Original Application No. 216 of 2025.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is allowed four weeks time to seek instruction and to file compliance affidavit.

6. List on 13.05.2027.

(Lt. Gen. Anil Puri) (Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta)

SB/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 1 (Suppl. No. 5)

MA No. 1279 of 2026 Inre: OA No. 1081 of 2024

Hav Patil Ekanath Supadu

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Vatsaly Srivastava, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. List is revised.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this early hearing application (MA No. 1279 of 2026).

3. Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

4. Since, none is present on behalf of the applicant to press this early hearing application, therefore, M.A. No. 1279/2026 is dismissed for want of prosecution. M.A. stands disposed of.

5. List this case for hearing on its already fixed date i.e. 12.01.2027.

(Lt. Gen. Anil Puri)

(Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta)

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 340 of 2024 Inre: OA No. 601 of 2023 Ex Hav Brajesh Kumar

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Anurag Mishra, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through virtual mode and Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

2. In pursuance to order dated 08.05.2026, Lt Col Mathew Vargese of ASC Records appeared through virtual mode and submitted that there is instruction for filing of Writ Petition but till today neither Writ petition has been filed by the respondents nor any SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

3. The matter is already settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court. This case was decided on 19.10.2023 and more than three years have already passed but compliance has not been done by the respondents. In the circumstance, there is no other option but ADG PS, IHQ of MoD (Army) to appear before the court through virtual mode to explain the reason for non compliance of the order of this Tribunal on the next date fixed.

4. Cost of Rs. 20,000/- has already been imposed against the respondents for non compliance of the order but the cost is pending. Respondents are hereby directed to deposit all the cost due against them on or before next date fixed.

5. List on 10.05.2027.

6. Copy of order to be given to the learned counsel for the respondents/Legal representative for necessary compliance.

7. If compliance is done in between, then there is no need to appear ADGPS, virtually on the next date fixed.

(Lt. Gen. Anil Puri) (Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta)

SB/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 1 (Sl. No.2)

Ex-A. No. 353 of 2024 Inre: OA No. 653 of 2023 Ex Sigmn Ashutosh Tripathi

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Rahul Dev Tripathi, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing none is present for the applicant. Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed compliance affidavit alongwith Corrigendum PPO which is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that by means of issuance of Corrigendum PPO, which is generated on 01.06.2026, compliance has been done in letter and spirit.

4. Since, compliance has been done, this Execution Application is disposed of.

(Lt. Gen. Anil Puri) (Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta)

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 472 of 2024 Inre: TA No. 69 of 2023

Ex MWO Anil Kumar (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Advocate Shri Rahul Pal, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Rahul Pal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through virtual mode and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has already supplied undertaking to the respondents on 28.05.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that till today, undertaking has not been received by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant is hereby directed to file proof of service of undertaking.

5. As prayed, four weeks further time is granted to the respondents to comply the order and file compliance affidavit.

6. List on 05.11.2026.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No.11 of 2025 Inre: OA No. 733 of 2023

JWO Tribhuwan Pandey (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Advocate Shri Raj Kumar Mishra, Advocate Ms. Upasna Mishra, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri RKS Chauhan,Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Raj Kumar Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Shri RKS Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that GSL has been issued on 17.08.2026 and now compliance is under process.

3. As prayed, four weeks further time is granted to the respondents to file compliance affidavit.

4. List on 25.02.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 18 of 2025 Inre: OA No. 387 of 2023

Ex Nk Amar Nath Yadav

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Pushpendra Mishra, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Shashi Kant Chaturvedi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Vinay Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through virtual mode and Shri Pushpendra Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment of the case.

3. As prayed, the case is adjourned for the day.

4. List on 11.05.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 160 of 2024 with MA No. 196 of 2024 alongwith Ex-A. No. 18 of 2025 Inre: OA No. 387 of 2023

Ex Nk Amar Nath Yadav

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate

Shri Shashi Kant Chaturvedi, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Shyam Singh, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Shashi Kant Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present through virtual mode.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment of the case.

3. As prayed, the case is adjourned for the day.

4. List on 11.05.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 74 of 2024 Ex Sub /MT Jitendra Bahadur Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate Shri Shantanu Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate Shri JP Shukla, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed objection on maintainability of the Original Application and submitted that the applicant has approached this Tribunal without availing alternative remedy as provided under Section 21 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Section 21 of the AFT Act reads as under :-

21. Application not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted.—(1) The Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of the remedies available to him under the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), as the case may be, and respective rules and regulations made thereunder.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), and respective rules and regulations—

(a) if a final order has been made by the Central Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under the said Acts, rules and regulations, rejecting any petition preferred or representation made by such person; (b) where no final order has been made by the Central Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the petition preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such petition was preferred or representation was made has expired.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that without any speaking order and Show Cause Notice, the award of honorary commission of the applicant has been withdrawn by the Commanding Officer without any legal justification so he approached this Tribunal and in such circumstances, there is no need to avail alternative remedy.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Without availing alternative remedy as per Section 21 of the AFT Act, 2007, Original Application filed by the applicant is not maintainable before this Tribunal.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to file statutory complaint before the competent authority within a period of 30 from today to resolve his grievances.

6. The respondents are directed to decide the statutory complaint/ representation of the applicant by a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of statutory complaint/representation from applicant and communicate the decision to the applicant accordingly.

7. With the aforesaid direction, the Original Application is disposed of finally.

8. Let a copy of this order be provided to learned counsel for the parties for necessary compliance.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 608 of 2024

Lt. Col. Sanjay Kumar Ray (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate

Shri Shashi Kant Chaturvedi, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Shashi Kant Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through virtual mode and Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not inclined to file rejoinder affidavit.

3. Now pleadings are complete.

4. List for physical final hearing on 30.03.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 1092 of 2024 with MA No. 1227 of 2024

Ex Capt Gurpreet Singh Ahluwalia

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri VP Pandey, Advocate Shri Mridul Pandey,Advocate Shri Deepak Bhatt, Advocate Shri RK Singh, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Manu Kumar Srivastava, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri RK Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Manu Kumar Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present through virtual mode.

2. Rejoinder affidavit has not been filed by the applicant.

3. As prayed, last opportunity of four weeks further time is granted to the learned counsel for the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit.

4. List on 30.03.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 1264 of 2024

Ex Sep Raju J Akkatangerhal

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Raj Kumar Mishra, Advocate

Ms. Upasna Mishra, Advocate

Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Amit Jaiswal, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Raj Kumar Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that rejoinder affidavit is ready and he will file the same in the Registry during the course of day.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List for physical final hearing on 29.03.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 374 of 2025

Col (TS) Rajendra Kumar Upadhyay (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri BL Verma, Advocate

Shri Rahul Pal, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Namit Sharma, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing none is present for the applicant. Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

2. Counter affidavit has not been filed by the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that counter affidavit is under preparation and seeks further time to file counter affidavit.

4. As prayed, four weeks further time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit.

5. List on 31.03.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 648 of 2025

Hav /PTA Grade Kiran Sainath

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Yashpal Singh, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Gyan Singh, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri SN Singh Gaherwar, Advocate holding brief of Shri Yashpal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present. Shri Gyan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is not present, however, Legal Representative is present.

2. Counter affidavit has not been filed by the respondents.

3. Legal Representative seeks further time to file counter affidavit.

4. As prayed, four weeks further time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit.

5. List on 31.03.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 774 of 2025

Sgt Sanjay Kumar Singh (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri SN Singh Gaherwar, Advocate

Shri Ajit Singh, Gaherwar, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri SN Singh Gaherwar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents and rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant are taken on record.

3. Now pleadings are complete.

4. List for physical final hearing on 30.03.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 880 of 2025

Sgt Vinay Kumar (Dismissed)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Mahendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Shri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Advocate Shri Sardul Singh, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Mahendra Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Counter affidavit has not been filed by the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks further time to file counter affidavit.

4. As prayed, four weeks further time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit.

5. List on 25.02.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 290 of 2026 with MA No. 353 of 2026

Ex Sep Amit Kumar Yadav

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Shashi Kant Chaturvedi, Advocate

Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Manu Kumar Srivastava, Advocate Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, Advocate Shri Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Shashi Kant Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Manu Kumar Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the respondents- Union of India & Ors are present through virtual mode. On behalf of AGIF, respondent No. 6, Shri Vinod Kumar Singh and Shri Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava are not available.

2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India & Ors is taken on record.

3. Counter affidavit of AGIF is still awaited.

4. One more opportunity of four weeks is granted to AGIF to file counter affidavit.

5. List on 13.04.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 302 of 2026 with MA No. 909 of 2026 Sep Nitin Kumar

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Namit Sharma, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing none is present for the applicant. Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

2. In the interest of justice, list this case on 13.04.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

RA No. 11 of 2025 with MA No. 543 of 2025 Inre: OA No. 820 of 2021

Ex Hav (AA) Krishna Kant Pandey

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Parijaat Belaura, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri RC Shukla, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. List is revised.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Shri RC Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

3. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list this case before the Bench comprising of Administrative Member, Vice Admiral Atul Kumar Jain.

4. List on 05.01.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

RA No. 27 of 2025 with MA No. 1115 of 2025 Inre: OA No. 805 of 2024

Ex MWO Arvind Kumar Porwal

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Shiv Kant Pandey, Advocate

Shri Amit Pandey, Advocate

Ms. Nisha Pandey, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri RC Shukla, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Shiv Kant Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri RC Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present through virtual mode.

2. Today, this case is listed for filing of objection on Review Application by the respondents but learned counsel for the respondents submitted the some more time be given for filing of objection.

3. As prayed, last opportunity of four weeks is granted to the respondents to file objection on Review Application.

4. List on 03.03.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

RA No. 06 of 2026 with MA No. 106 of 2026 Inre: OA No. 527 of 2019

Ex Sep Rakesh Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Virat Anand Singh, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri RC Shukla, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Virat Anand Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Shri RC Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

2. Objection on delay condonation application has already been filed by the respondents but till today, reply to the objection has not been filed by the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks and is allowed four weeks further time to file reply to the objection.

4. List on 17.03.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Review Application No. 08 of 2026 Inre : Original Application No. 287 of 2013

Service No. 14415912A, Ex. Naik Raj Narayan

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Ankur Rawat, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Ankur Rawat, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through virtual mode and Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present in the Court.

2. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The applicant has filed the Review Application along with application for condonation of delay. As per registry, the application is delayed by 08 years and 08 days from the statutory period provided for filing of Review Application. Rule 18 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 postulates that no application shall be entertained beyond the period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed. Review Application No. 08 of 2026 seeks review of the judgment and order dated 18.08.2015 passed in Original Application No. 287 of 2013. Admittedly, the Review Application has been filed beyond the period of 30 days, as such, it is not entertainable.

4. We have gone through the grounds and reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, no sufficient ground is mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and day to day delay has not been explained. Hence, the application for condonation of delay has no force and it is accordingly dismissed. Review Application No. 08 of 2026

5. The Review Application filed by the applicant under Rule 18 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 by which applicant has prayed for review the judgement and order dated 18.08.2015 of this Tribunal passed in Original Application No. 287 of 2013 by which the Original Application was allowed and the order of discharge of the applicant was set aside and the applicant was re-instated in service. In the Review Application the applicant has taken grounds that while setting aside the discharge and directing re- instatement, the order is conspicuously silent on the grant of back wages, continuity of service and consequential financial benefits from 12.10.2006 to the date of actual reinstatement (19.07.2016), in service jurisprudence setting aside wrongful termination/discharge ordinarily entails full back wages unless disentitling factors (e.g. misconduct, delay) are expressly recorded but no such finding exists in the impugned order; discharge having been declared illegal/mechanical/violative of natural justice and policy, the applicant is entitled to full restoration including salary, allowances, pensionable service reckoning, and other benefits for the interregnum period, subject to adjustment of any interim payment received, if any; the omission constitute error apparent and has resulted in grave prejudice. The PAO (OR) communication dated 16.02.2018 interpreting the impugned order as not entitling back wages and the dismissal of O.A. No. 756 of 2020 on that basis, constitute new material facts/sufficient reason justifying review clarify/modify the order to explicitly include back wages in the interest of justice. The re-instatement without back wages defeats the very purpose of setting aside wrongful discharge, especially when the applicant has suffered loss of salary for nearly 10 years due to an order now declared invalid. According to the applicant, there is error is apparent on the face of record, hence, judgment and order impugned may be reviewed and direct the respondents to grant full back wages, salary, allowances and other consequential benefits (including continuity of service for pension and other purposes) for the period from 12.10.2006 to 08.07.2016 with interest at reasonable rate, after adjustment of any payments already received.

6. The order of review which has been sought by the applicant was passed by the Bench comprising of (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Hali, Member (J) (since retired) and Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member (A) (since retired).

7. It is a settled proposition of law that the scope of the review is limited and until it is shown that there is error apparent on the face of record in the judgment and order sought to be reviewed, the same cannot be reviewed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court often uses the doctrine of prospective overruling. Unless the Hon’ble Apex Court explicitly states that its decision applies retrospectively to past settled cases, the new declaration of law applies only to pending cases and future litigations.

8. For ready reference, Order 47, Rule 1 sub-rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is reproduced below :- “1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record , or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.”

9. In view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions, it is settled that the scope of review jurisdiction is very limited and re-hearing is not permissible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 9 of its judgment in the case of Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others, reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715, has observed as under:- “9. Under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self- evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 26 of its judgment in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Versus V. Narayana Reddy and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 5503-04 of 2022, decided on 18.08.2022, has observed as under:- “26. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court’s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as “for any other sufficient reason”. The said phrase has been explained to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule”

11. In the light of the legal position crystalized above, we have gone through the judgment and order sought to be reviewed and find that this Tribunal has considered all the facts and circumstances on the basis of material available on record and no illegality or irregularity or error apparent on the face of record being found therein, we are of the view that there is no force in the grounds taken in the review application so that order may be reviewed.

12. In the result, Review Application is rejected being time barred as well as on merit.

SB/AKD/-

ORDER SHEET

TA No. 08 of 2022

Ex Rect Surendra Kumar

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri JN Mishra, Advocate

Shri Sharad Kumar Shukla, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Shashi Kant Chaturvedi holding brief of Shri Vinay Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through virtual mode. The applicant Surendra Kumar is also present before the court.

2. Shri JN Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 is present before the court and Shri Sharad Kumar Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the Bank is present through virtual mode.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 was granted time to file parawise reply to the objection on compliance report which has not been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 submitted that some short time be given to him to file reply.

5. In the interest of justice, one more chance of two weeks is granted to the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 to file reply.

6. List on 15.12.2026.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

TA No. 63 of 2023

Akshay Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Rahul Dev Tripathi, Advocate

Shri Jata Shankar Pandey, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Preeti Mala, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Rahul Dev Tripathi, previous counsel of the applicant is not present.

2. The applicant Akshay Singh is present in person before the court and submitted that he wants to engage Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh as counsel in this case. Ms. Preet Mala, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

3. Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate has already filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant which is taken on record. Registry is directed to show his name as counsel for the applicant in future cause list and delete the name of previous counsels.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks and is allowed four weeks further time, as one more last opportunity, to file counter affidavit.

5. List on 24.02.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 13 of 2021 alongwith DY. No. 669 of 2016 (Decided)

Ex Hav Lal Babu Tiwari

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Shiv Kant Pandey, Advocate

Ms. Nisha Pandey, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Shiv Kant Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through virtual mode and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

2. Legal Representative apprised the Bench that original record is available today for perusal of the Bench.

3. So, the respondents are hereby directed to retain the original record of the case to produce before the Bench on the next date fixed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant also seeks adjournment.

5. List for hearing on 09.12.2026.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 406 of 2023

Ex Sub Pramod Kumar

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate Shri Girish Tiwari, Advocate Shri Dheerendra Kumar Agnihotri, Advocate

Shri Sandeep Tripathi, Advocate

Shri Vishnu Kant Awasthi, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Umesh Chandra Bajpai, Advocate holding brief of Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Asheesh Agnihortri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. It is informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that subject matter is subjudice before the Larger Bench.

3. Brief Holder to the learned counsel for the applicant also seeks further time.

4. As prayed, list this case for hearing on 26.05.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 1075 of 2023 Rfn Sunil Dutt

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri SN Singh Gaherwar, Advocate

Shri Ajit Singh Gaherwar, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Bipin Kumar Singh, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri SN Singh Gaherwar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Shri Bipin Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.

3. List for hearing on 18.12.2026.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 23 of 2024

Ex Sep Raj Kumar

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate

Shri Suresh Kumar Saini, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri JN Mishra, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri JN Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not inclined to file rejoinder affidavit.

3. Since the applicant is not inclined to file rejoinder affidavit, so the pleadings are complete.

4. List for physical final hearing on 05.11.2026.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 81 of 2025

Ex Dfr Pratap Singh Chahar

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Amit Asthana, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Virat Anand Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Amit Ashtana, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.

3. List for physical final hearing on 19.01.2027.

SB/-