Daily order sheet, C1, 13 Oct 2026 on 13 October 2026

1. Memo of Appearance filed by Shri Anurag 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 Anuj Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

4. There is delay of 09 years 04 months and 08 days in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks and is allowed four weeks’ time to seek instruction and file objection on delay condonation application.

6. List on 31.03.2027.

(Vice Admiral Atul Kumar Jain) (Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta)

SB

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 1 (Suppl. No. 2) OA No. 964 of 2026 with MA No. 1164 of 2026

Hav Rajeev Kumar Yadav (Retd)

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. Memo of Appearance filed by Shri Devesh 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 Mahendra Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through virtual mode and Shri Devesh Kumar Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court. M.A. No. 1164 of 2026

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

4. There is delay of 01 year, 07 months and 21 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 is sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

5. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. O.A. No. 964 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 31.03.2027.

SB/-

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

OA No. 965 of 2026

Hav /Clk (SD) Vikash Kumar

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. Memo of Appearance filed by Shri GS Sikarwar, 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 Mahendra Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri GS Sikarwar, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present through virtual mode.

3. This original application has been filed for grant of premature discharge from service on compassionate grounds.

4. Matter needs adjudication.

5. Admit.

6. 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.

7. SB/-

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

RA No. 42 of 2026 with MA No. 1162 of 2026 Inre: OA No. 457 of 2023

Col Arvind Kumar Pandey (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Bihari Lal Verma, 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 Bihari Lal Verma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present through virtual mode. M.A. No. 1162 of 2026

2. The applicant has filed the Review Application alongwith application for condonation of delay. As per registry, the application is delayed by 01 year, 08 months & 13 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. 42 of 2026 seeks review of the judgment and order dated 09.05.2024 passed in O.A No. 457 of 2023. Admittedly, the Review Application has been filed beyond the period of 30 days, as such, it is not entertainable.

3. 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. 42 of 2026

4. 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 09.05.2024 of this Tribunal passed in Original Application No. 457 of 2023 by which the Original Application was partly allowed and the applicant was held entitled to get disability element @

30% for life duly rounded off to 50% for life w.e.f. three years preceding the date of filing of Original Application, i.e. w.e.f. 13.04.2023. In the Review Application the applicant has taken grounds that applicant should be granted arrears w.e.f. next date of retirement i.e. 01.07.2015 as per Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 12.02.2026 in the case of Union of India through its Secretary & Others Vs. Sgt. Girish Kumar & Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 6820- 6824 of 2018. Ld. Counsel for the applicant also relied upon the judgment of the AFT (PB) New Delhi in R.A. No. 32/2026 with M.A. No. 2439/2026 in O.A. No. 1144/2019, Col Mukesh Kumar Khattar (Retd) vs. Union of India & Ors, decided on 22.05.2026. According to the applicant, there is error is apparent on the face of record, hence, judgment and order impugned may be reviewed.

5. The order of review which has been sought by the applicant was passed by the Bench comprising of (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar, Member (J) (since retired) and Hon’ble Lt. Gen. Anil Puri, Member (A).

6. 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.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent order dated 12.10.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No 6820 of 2018, Union of India & Ors vs. Sgt Girish Kumar & Ors, has held in Para 7 & 8 that : “7. It is well-settled in law that the observations made in a judgment are not to be read as provisions of a statute, nor are they to be read divorced from the context of the facts in which they were made. A difference in facts may make a material difference to the precedential value of a decision.

8. In the light of aforesaid established legal principles, we only wish to state that the common judgment dated 12.02.2026 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 6820-6824 of 2018 cannot be construed to mean that on the basis of said judgment grant of disability pension with arrears can be claimed in every case. Needless to state that each claim shall be decided on its own merits.”

8. Further, under explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court was based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a higher court is not ground for a review of that judgment. In the instant case the order was passed on 09.05.2024 by this Tribunal and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 12.02.2026, hence, it is not applicable in the instant case and on the basis of those Judgments the case cannot be re-opened. However, it is clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its order dated 12.10.2026 in the case of Union of India & Ors vs. Sgt Girish

Kumar & Ors (supra) that it cannot be construed to mean that on the basis of said judgment dated 12.02.2026, grant of disability pension with arrears can be claimed in every case.

9. 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.”

10. 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."

11. 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”

12. 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.

13. In the result, Review Application is rejected.

SB/-

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

DY. No. 2663 of 2024 with MA No. 987 of 2024

Ex JWO Binay Kumar Singh

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 : Appoli Srivastava, Advocate Notes of the Registry

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

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

3. SB/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 1 (Suppl. No. 6)

DY. No. 2146 of 2025 with MA No. 722 of 2025

Ex Sgt Gaurav Agrawal

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 Shyam Singh, 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 Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present through virtual mode.

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

3. List on 12.03.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 503 of 2023 Inre; OA No. 1113 of 2022 MCME I (Hony Sub Lt Kanuri Dhayananda (Retd)

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing none appeared on behalf of the applicant. Shri Rajiv Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present.

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

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that order has been complied with and PPO has been issued. He prays for and is granted two weeks further time to file compliance affidavit.

4. SB/-

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

Ex-A. No. 62 of 2024 Inre: OA No. 219 of 2023 Ex Hav Narendra Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. Shri Shantanu Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant which is taken on record. His name be shown as counsel for the applicant in the future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Shantanu Kumar Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, through virtual mode, are present.

3. Compliance affidavit has not been filed by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Writ Petition filed assailing the order of this Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court has been duly dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks some more time to comply the order and file compliance affidavit.

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

7. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 84 of 2024 Inre: OA No. 90 of 2023

Ex Hav Chandrama Ram

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Ashok Kumar, Advocate

Shri Rohit Kumar, 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 Rohit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through virtual mode and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

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

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Writ Petition filed assailing the order of this Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court is pending but there is no stay order.

4. In the circumstances, there is no other option to respondents but to comply the order in letter and spirit. If they fail to comply the order till next date of list, coercive action shall be taken against the responsible officer for non compliance of the order of this Tribunal.

5. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 119 of 2024 Inre: OA No. 94 of 2023

Ex Sub Yogendra Yadav

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi, 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 Manoj Kumar Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri JN Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

3. Legal Representative apprised the court that Writ Petition No. 3552/2026 is pending before the Hon’ble High Court but there is no operative stay order.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 21.04.2026, the applicant has already submitted undertaking on affidavit to the respondents so in the circumstances, respondents are directed to comply the order provisionally and file provisional compliance affidavit within four weeks.

5. If they fail to comply the order till next date of listing, coercive action shall be passed against the responsible officer.

6. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A No. 121 of 2024 Inre: OA No. 258 of 2023

Ex ACP Nb Sub Chanchal Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri KP Datta, 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 KP Datta, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

3. Status report filed by the respondents is taken on record.

4. Representative of PCDA (P) Prayagraj apprised the court that GSL has already been issued and compliance is under process and submitted that Corrigendum PPO will be issued within a short span of time.

5. Respondents are directed to deposit all the cost due against them in the Registry till next date of listing.

6. Cost of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the respondents in the Registry shall be remitted in favour of the applicant.

7. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 185 of 2024 Inre; OA No. 489 of 2023 Ex Sgt Arvind Kumar

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Ravi Kumar Yadav, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Saurabh Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ravi Kumar Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is stay order in Writ Petition No 6405/2025 which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.

4. Since, there is operative interim stay order in pending Writ Petition No. 6405/2025, list this case on 03.05.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 205 of 2024 Inre OA No. 709 of 2023 Ex Ris Rakesh Kumar

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

Shri RK Singh, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Anju Singh, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri RK Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Ms. Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Writ Petition No 6352/2024 which was connected with Writ Petition No. 9365/2023 is duly dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench but present Writ Petition No. 6353/2024 is pending. 3 In these circumstances, respondents are directed to make compliance of the order provisionally subject to final outcome of the Writ Petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court after obtaining undertaking on affidavit from the applicant to effect that in case any adverse order is passed against him, he would return all the amount, if any, and comply with the order of the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition.

4. As prayed by the learned counsel for the respondents four weeks further time is granted to comply the order provisionally and file provisional compliance affidavit.

5.

6. Copy of order be provided to the respondents/Legal Cell for necessary compliance.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 228 of 2024 Inre: OA No. 258 of 2022

Group Capt Sanjay Shukla, VSM (Retd)

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 Arun Kumar Sahu, 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 Arun Kumar Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

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

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Writ Petition filed assailing the order of this Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court is duly dismissed on 20.08.2026.

4. Since, Writ Petition has been dismissed, respondents to comply the order in letter and spirit.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks one more chance to comply the order.

6. It is directed that if the order is not complied with till next date of listing, coercive action shall be taken against the responsible officer for non compliance of the order of this Tribunal.

7. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 451 of 2024 Inre: OA No. 1211 of 2023

Ex HFO Ram Lakhan Yadav

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Keshav Sharma, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

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

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Writ Petition No. 426/2026 filed assailing the order of this Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court is pending and there is no stay order.

4. In these circumstances, respondents are directed to make compliance of the order provisionally subject to final outcome of the Writ Petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court after obtaining undertaking on affidavit from the applicant to effect that in case any adverse order is passed against him, he would return all the amount, if any, and comply with the order of the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition.

5. As prayed by the learned counsel for the respondents four weeks further time is granted to comply the order provisionally and file provisional compliance affidavit.

6.

7. Copy of order be provided to the respondents/Legal Cell for compliance of the order.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 465 of 2024 Inre: OA No. 297 of 2023

Hony Lt Brahm Deomani Tripathi

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Ashok Kumar, Advocate Shri Rohit Kumar, 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 Rohit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri RC Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present through virtual mode.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no instruction but proposes to file Writ Petition.

3. So, in the circumstances there is no other option to the respondents but to comply the order in letter and spirit till next date of listing. If they fail to comply the order till next date of listing, respondents shall deposit additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- in the Registry.

4. Respondents are further directed to deposit all the cost due against them in the Registry till next date of listing.

5. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 06 of 2025 Inre: OA No. 891 of 2023

Ex HFO Shiv Om Sharma

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 Amit Jaiswal, 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 Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present through virtual mode.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Writ Petiton filed before the Hon’ble High Court has been duly dismissed in July 2026 and submitted that compliance of the order is under process.

3. Since, the Writ petition has been dismissed, respondents are hereby directed to comply the order within four weeks otherwise coercive action shall taken against the responsible officer for non implementation of the order of this Tribunal.

4. Cost of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the respondents shall be remitted in favour of the applicant.

5. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex-A. No. 338 of 2025 Inre: OA No. 257 of 2024

Gp Capt Surya Bhan Singh (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri VP Pandey,Advocate Shri RK Singh, Advocate Shri DK Dixit, 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 RK Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Bipin Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in compliance of the order dated 01.04.2025, respondents have complied the order and corrigendum PPO has been issued.

3. Representative of PCDA (P) Prayagraj submitted that payment of Rs. 19,86,505.00 has also been made in bank account of the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant conceded the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Since, the order has been complied with, this Execution Application is disposed of in full satisfaction.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 69 of 2024

Col. Dilip Kumar DS

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 Shailendra Sharma Atal, 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 Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present through virtual mode.

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

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he will file counter affidavit in the Registry during the course of day after handing over copy of counter affidavit to learned counsel for the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant may file rejoinder affidavit, if any, within four weeks.

5. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 1197 of 2024

Ex Sub Surendra Kumar Tomer

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Ravi Kumar Yadav, Advocate Shri Saurabh Yadav, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Saurabh Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Somesh Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. It is informed by the learned counsel for the parties that similar matter is subjudice before the Larger Bench of AFT (PB) New Delhi.

3. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 215 of 2025

MWO (HFO) Her Deo Pandey (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Yashpal 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 Yashpal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through virtual mode and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he wants to move amendment application to bring on record rejection order of first appeal.

3. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 920 of 2025 with MA No. 1066 of 2025

Ex NK Rambeer Rathor (Through his legally wedded wife Smt Snehlata)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate

Shri Girish Tiwari, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing none appeared for the applicant. Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present.

2. Reply to objection on delay filed by the applicant is taken on record.

3. List this case on 01.04.2027 for disposal of delay condonation application.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 329 of 2026

Sub (GNR) Jaswinder Pal (Retd)

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

Shri Om Prakash Vishwakarma, Advocate Shri Dinesh Singh, 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 Vinay Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri JN Mishra, 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. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 335 of 2026 with MA No. 406 of 2026 Sgt Viraj Pal Singh (Retd)

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

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Kavita Mishra, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Rahul Pal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Kavita Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

3. Brief holder to learned counsel for the respondents submitted tghat 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. It is observed that delay condonation application (M.A. No. 406/2026) has already been disposed on 23.04.2026. Therefore, Registry is directed not to show M.A. No. 406/2026 in future cause list.

6. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 336 of 2026 with MA No. 407 of 2026 Kamla Devi W/o late Cfn Saroj Kumar Rathore

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Advocate Shri Rahul Pal, Advocate Shri Tatsat Shukla, Advocate Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Rahul Pal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents filed objection on delay condonation application which is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that husband of the applicant was missing since 10.09.1993. In this regard a FIR was lodged and the court (District Judge Bageshwar) has declared the date of death of the husband of the applicant on 03.03.2025. M.A. No. 407 of 2026

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no delay in filing of Original Application, however, if there is any delay, it is not deliberate, but on account of reasons given in affidavit filed in support of application.

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

6. We are of the view that ground of delay mentioned in affidavit annexed with delay condonation application is sufficient. Delay condonation application is allowed and delay in filing application is condoned. Delay condonation application stands disposed of. O.A. No. 336 of 2026

7. This Original Application has been filed for grant of invalid pension.

8. Matter needs adjudication.

9. Admit.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

11. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 338 of 2026

Ex Hav (NA) Vikram Singh Yadav

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri KP Datta, 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 KP Datta, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Bipin 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 submits that counter affidavit is ready and it will be filed in the Registry during the course of day.

4. Copy of counter affidavit is duly received by the learned counsel for the applicant in the court. He may file rejoinder affidavit, if any, within four weeks.

5. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 355 of 2026

L/Hav Roshan Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, Advocate Shri Abhishek Singh, 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 none appeared for the applicant. Shri Bipin Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present.

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

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that parawise comments are still awaited 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. SB/-

ORDER SHEET

TA No. 22 of 2025 with MA No. 136 of 2026

Ex Sgt Shailendra Bahadur Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Ravi Kumar Yadav, Advocate Shri Saurabh Yadav, Advocate Shri Yashpal Singh, 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 Yashpal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through virtual mode and Shri Bipin Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

2. Objection on amendment application filed by the respondents is taken on record.

3. Amendment application (M.A. No. 136/2026) has already been filed by the applicant which is available on record.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on amendment application and perused the record.

5. The proposed amendment in the T.A. will not change the nature the case.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection.

7. Accordingly, amendment application is allowed. The applicant is directed to incorporate amendment in the Transferred Application within two weeks and provide copy of amended T.A. to the learned counsel for the applicant.

8. M.A. No. 136/2026 stands disposed of.

9. List for hearing on 01.04.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 308 of 2024

Ex Sgt Satya Prakash

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri AK Chaudhary, Advocate Shri Raj Kumar Mishra, Advocate Ms. Upasna Mishra, 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 Raj Kumar Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Original Application is partly allowed.

4. Detailed order is placed on separate sheets.

5. Misc. Application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed of.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 1104 of 2024

Col Naveen Kumar Wadhera (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Aditya Singh Puar, Advocate Ms. Shalani Puar, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Siddharath Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Aditya Singh Puar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Chet Narayan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Learned counsel for the parties put their arguments but injury report is reliable in this case.

3. As prayed, learned counsel for the respondents is granted four weeks further time, as last opportunity, to file injury report positively till next date fixed.

4. List for hearing on 21.01.2027.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

TA No. 11 of 2026 WO Shirish Kumar Tripati (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Rahul Pal, Advocate Shri Tatsat Shukla, Advocate Shri Dhiraj Kumar, 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 Rahul Pal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri JN Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Transferred Application is allowed.

4. Detailed order is placed on separate sheets.

5. Misc. Application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed of.

SB/-

ORDER SHEET

TA No. 12 of 2026

Sgt Mukesh Chand (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Rahul Pal, Advocate Shri Tatsat Shukla, Advocate Shri Dhiraj Kumar, 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 Rahul Pal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Transferred Application is allowed.

4. Detailed order is placed on separate sheets.

5. Misc. Application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed of.

SB/-