Case details

Court: Armed Forces Tribunal · Regional Bench, Lucknow
Decided: 8 October 2026
Type: Order

Actions & My Vault

Save to My Vault

Ask Compass

Court copy / source

Armed Forces Tribunal

Daily order sheet, CB J & N, 08 Oct 2026 on 8 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 3)

O.A. No. 1003 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1213 of 2026

Parwati Bhatt W/o Rect Late Mathura Datt

Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Lalit Samant, Advocate

Versus

Union of India & Others

Respondents

By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of

the

Registry

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

Decisions referred to

In this index

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Lalit Samant, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

4. There is delay of more than 20 years in filing this original application. Applicant has filed delay condonation application for condoning the delay.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents raised objection with regard to delay in filing of this O.A. He prays for and is granted four weeks time to seek instructions and to file objection, if any, to the delay condonation application.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 4) O.A. No. 1004 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1214 of 2026

Naik Kedar Singh (Retd.)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd.), Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1214 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 01 year, 09 months and 04 days in filing Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application. The cause shown in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

4. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. OA No. 1004 of 2026

5. This original application has been filed for grant of Terminal Gratuity.

6. Case needs adjudication.

7. Admit.

8. Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks and is allowed four weeks’ time to file Counter Affidavit in the Registry after supplying a copy to the applicant’s counsel. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 5) O.A. No. 1005 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1215 of 2026

Naik Puran Singh (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd.), Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Sharma, for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1215 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 04 years, 01 month and 04 days in filing Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application. The cause shown in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

4. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. OA No. 1005 of 2026

5. This original application has been filed for grant of Terminal Gratuity.

6. Case needs adjudication.

7. Admit.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 6) O.A. No. 1006 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1216 of 2026

Naik Arjun Singh (Retd.)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd.), Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Sharma for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1216 of 2026

4. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. OA No. 1006 of 2026

5. This original application has been filed for grant of Terminal Gratuity.

6. Case needs adjudication.

7. Admit.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 7) O.A. No. 1007 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1217 of 2026

Sepoy Rajendra Singh (Retd.)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd.), Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

3. There is a delay of 02 years, 09 months and 04 days in filing Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application. The cause shown in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

4. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. OA No. 1007 of 2026

5. This original application has been filed for grant of Terminal Gratuity.

6. Case needs adjudication.

7. Admit.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 8) O.A. No. 1008 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1218 of 2026

Naik Kailash Singh (Retd.)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd.), Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

3. There is a delay of 03 years, 09 months and 04 days in filing Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application. The cause shown in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

4. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. OA No. 1008 of 2026

5. This original application has been filed for grant of Terminal Gratuity.

6. Case needs adjudication.

7. Admit.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 9) O.A. No. 1009 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1219 of 2026

Naik Kedar Singh Bhandari (Retd.)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd.), Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

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

4. There is delay of 01 year 10 months and 12 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. 1009 of 2026

6. This original application has been filed for grant of second service pension for the services rendered by the applicant in DSC.

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 after supplying a copy to the applicant’s counsel. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 10) O.A. No. 1010 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1220 of 2026

Ex. Spr. Om Prakash (Retd.)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd.), Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

4. There is delay of more than 27 years in filing this original application. Applicant has filed delay condonation application for condoning the delay.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 11) O.A. No. 1011 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1225 of 2026 Smt. Masnti Devi W/o Rfn. Late Mangsir Singh (Retd.)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1225 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 11 years, 03 months and 11 days in filing Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application.

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents raised objection to the delay condonation application and submitted that there is no explanation for the delay.

5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was not aware of his right and after settlement from Hon’ble Apex Court, he approached before this Bench. The cause shown in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

6. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. OA No. 1011 of 2026

7. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the matter pertains to grant of Terminal Gratuity of the applicant which he served in the Territorial Army.

8. Case needs adjudication.

9. Admit.

10. Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks and is allowed four weeks’ time to file Counter Affidavit in the Registry after supplying a copy to the applicant’s counsel. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 12)

O.A. No. 1012 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1226 of 2026

Ex. Time Scale Naik Kashmir Snigh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

4. There is delay of more than 21 years in filing this original application. Applicant has filed delay condonation application for condoning the delay.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents raised objection with regard to delay in filing of this O.A as well as on maintainability. The matter has already been settled by the Hon’ble High Court. He prays for and is granted four weeks time to seek instructions and to file objection, if any, to the delay condonation application as well as on maintainability of this O.A.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 13) O.A. No. 1018 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1227 of 2026 Nk. Raje Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Shri Anil Anthwal, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A. No. 1227 of 2026

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

4. There is delay of 01 year 02 months and 11 days in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents vehemently objected and seeks time to file objection to the delay condonation application.

6. Cause of delay shown in the affidavit annexed with the delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

7. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. O.A. No. 1018 of 2026

8. This original application has been filed for grant of MACP.

9. Case needs adjudication.

10. Admit.

11. Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks and is allowed four weeks’ time to file Counter Affidavit in the Registry after supplying a copy to the applicant’s counsel. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 14)

O.A. No. 1019 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1228 of 2026

Ex. Nk. (ER) Kunji Lal

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Shri Anil Anthwal, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

4. There is delay of more than 19 years in filing this original application. Applicant has filed delay condonation application for condoning the delay.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents raised objection with regard to delay in filing of this O.A. He further objected that multiple prayer cannot be granted in a single O.A as per AFT Rules. Applicant’s counsel seeks time to amend the prayer clause of the O.A. Allowed as prayed.

6. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks time to seek instructions and to file objection, if any, to the delay condonation application.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 15)

O.A. No. 1020 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1229 of 2026

Bimla Devi W/o Late Sub. Maj. Surendra Singh Negi

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Shri Anil Anthwal, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

4. There is delay of more than 17 years in filing this original application. Applicant has filed delay condonation application for condoning the delay.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 16)

O.A. No. 1021 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1230 of 2026

Arjun Singh Gorkha

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Tarun P.S. Takuli, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tarun PS Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1230 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 01 year, 11 months and 05 days in filing Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application. The cause shown in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

4. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. OA No. 1021 of 2026

5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the matter pertains to grant of Terminal Gratuity of the applicant which he served in the Territorial Army.

6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that representation was made by the applicant before the competent authority but at the time of filing representation six months is required for its disposal. This required six months time has not passed.

7. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has availed alternative remedy as provided under Section 21 of the AFT Act, 2007, but six months has not yet completed and that representation is pending before respondents.

8. In these circumstances, since the matter is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondents are directed to decide the representation in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter, if any grievance is left, the applicant may approach to this Tribunal again in accordance with law.

9. The O.A. is disposed off accordingly at the admission stage itself.

10. Let a copy of this order be provided to the applicant as well as OIC Legal Cell/ Respondents for necessary compliance.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 17)

O.A. No. 1022 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1231 of 2026

Lal Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Tarun P.S. Takuli, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tarun PS Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1231 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 04 years, 06 months and 20 days in filing Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application. The cause shown in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

4. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. OA No. 1022 of 2026

5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the matter pertains to grant of Terminal Gratuity of the applicant which he served in the Territorial Army.

9. The O.A. is disposed off accordingly at the admission stage itself.

10. Let a copy of this order be provided to the applicant as well as OIC Legal Cell/ Respondents for necessary compliance.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 18)

O.A. No. 1023 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1232 of 2026

Anand Lal Verma

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Tarun P.S. Takuli, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tarun PS Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1232 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 02 years, 02 months and 05 days in filing Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application. The cause shown in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

4. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. OA No. 1023 of 2026

5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the matter pertains to grant of Terminal Gratuity of the applicant which he served in the Territorial Army.

9. The O.A. is disposed off accordingly at the admission stage itself.

10. Let a copy of this order be provided to the applicant as well as OIC Legal Cell/ Respondents for necessary compliance.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 19)

O.A. No. 1024 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1233 of 2026

Laxman Snigh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Tarun P.S. Takuli, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tarun PS Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1233 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 09 months and 05 days in filing Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application. The cause shown in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

4. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. OA No. 1024 of 2026

5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the matter pertains to grant of Terminal Gratuity of the applicant which he served in the Territorial Army.

9. The O.A. is disposed off accordingly at the admission stage itself.

10. Let a copy of this order be provided to the applicant as well as OIC Legal Cell/ Respondents for necessary compliance.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 20) O.A. No. 1025 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1234 of 2026

Honorary Naik Daulat Singh Rawat

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri C.S. Rawat, Advocate

Shri R.S. Latwal, Advocate

Shri Vivek Kumar, Advocate

Shri Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri C.S. Rawat, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Sharma for the respondents are present. M.A. No. 1234 of 2026

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

4. There is delay of 02 months and 05 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. 1025 of 2026

6. This original application has been filed against the recovery to the tune of Rs. 168269/- from the applicant from this pension.

7. Ld. Counsel for the applicant also submits that the respondents has started recovery @ 10,705/- per month since Feb 2026 from the pension of the applicant after 41 years of his retirement i.e. 31.03.1985 and requested for immediate stoppage of recovery.

8. Respondents are directed to immediately stop recovery from the pension of the applicant as an interim measure.

9. Case needs adjudication.

10. Admit.

12. Copy of the order be provided to the Departmental Representative/ Legal cell for compliance of the order.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 21)

O.A. No. 1026 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1235 of 2026

Mr. Govind Singh Thapa

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri B.S. Koranga, Advocate

Versus Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri B.S. Koranga, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

4. There is delay of more than 11 years in filing this original application. Applicant has filed delay condonation application for condoning the delay.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents raised objection with regard to maintainability of this O.A before this Tribunal and delay in filing of this O.A. He prays for and is granted four weeks time to seek instructions and to file objection, if any, on the maintainability of the O.A as well as to the delay condonation application.

6. List on 28.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 22) O.A. No. 1027 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1238 of 2026

Hav. Clerk (SD) Sandeep Kumar

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A. No. 1238 of 2026

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

4. There is no delay in filing of Original Application. However Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application which is rejected as not required.

5. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. O.A. No. 1027 of 2026

6. This original application has been filed for premature discharge of the applicant.

7. Case needs adjudication.

8. Admit.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 23)

M.A. No. 1237 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1236 of 2026 Inre : T.A. No. 109 of 2011

Man Mohan Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Shri Vipul Pandey, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Sharma for the respondents are present.

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

4. This application has been filed for restoration of the TA which was dismissed in default on 14.02.2012.

5. There is delay of more than 12 years in filing this restoration application. Applicant has filed delay condonation application for condoning the delay.

6. Ld. Counsel for the respondents raised objection with regard to maintainability of this application before this Tribunal and delay in filing of this application. Respondents’ counsel prays for and is granted four weeks time to seek instructions and to file objection, if any, on the maintainability of the restoration application as well as to the delay condonation application.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 24) O.A. No. 319 of 2024

Hony. Nb. Sub. Ranjit Singh (Retd.)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd.), Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Today this case is listed for issuance of notice to respondent No. 2 and 3.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that he shall file steps during the course of the day.

4. Registry is directed to issue notice to respondent No. 2 and 3 returnable within four weeks.

5. List on 28.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 25)

Ex. A. No. 240 of 2025 Inre : O.A. No. 290 of 2024

Ex. Sub. Lal Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Vikram Singh Dhapola, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Vikram Singh Dhapola, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the order has been complied with and payment has also been made to the applicant.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant conceded the fact that order has been complied with.

4. Since the order has been complied with, this Execution application is disposed of with full satisfaction.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 26)

Diary No. 2498 of 2026 Inre : O.A. No. 198 of 2025

Ex. L/Nk. Prithvi Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

3. In this case certain defects have been raised by the Registry. Applicant’s counsel has removed the defects. Now, Registry is directed to allot regular execution application number to this case.

4. This is a fresh execution application filed for implementation of order passed by this Tribunal passed in Original Application No. 198 of 2025.

5. Response affidavit filed by the respondents’ counsel is taken on record. By means of this affidavit, it is submitted that writ petition (SB) NO. 480/2026 has been filed by the respondents against the order of this Bench.

6. Matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble High Court (Uttarakhand).

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 1)

R.A. No. 40 of 2026 Inre: Ex. A. No. 346 of 2023 Inre: O.A. No. 138 of 2022

Union of India & Others

Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Versus Ex Nk Khusal Singh

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondent : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the applicants-Union of India & Ors and Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the respondent are present. R.A No. 40 of 2026

2. This review application has been filed by applicants-Union of India & Ors against execution application No. 346 of 2023 inre O.A. No. 138 of 2022. By means of this review application, learned counsel for the applicants-Union of India & Ors submits that the respondent-applicant was discharged from service on 30.06.2004, and prior to discharge from service, he was granted last increment on 19.06.2003 and his next increment fell due on 01.06.2004. It is further submitted that since the applicant was discharged from service on 30.06.2004, his next increment due on 01.06.2004 would have been granted to the respondent-applicant prior to his date of discharge.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants-Union of India & Ors further submits that due to typographical error in the counter affidavit filed in O.A. No. 138 of 2022, the said facts could not be mentioned in counter affidavit. He pleaded for allowing the review application.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-applicant submits that the statement made on behalf of the applicants-Union of India is misconceived as the applicant-respondent was discharged from service with basic pay of Rs 4,019/- whereas in response to RTI dated 07.07.2022, the applicants-Union of India & Ors have stated that basic pay of the applicant- respondent was Rs 2,387/- as on 01.07.2004.

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

6. We find that the applicant-respondents was granted MACP on 01.06.2004 prior to discharge from service, therefore, he was not entitled for grant of notional increment which was due on 01.07.2004. In this regard the submission made on behalf the applicants-Union of India & Ors being trustworthy, this review application is allowed. Order dated 07.09.2022 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 138 of 2022 is recalled as the applicant was not eligible for grant of notional increment due on 01.07.2004.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 2)

Ex. A. No. 346 of 2023 Inre: O.A. No. 138 of 2022

Ex. Nk. Kushal Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. This execution application has been filed for implementation of order dated 07.09.2022 passed in O.A. No. 138 of 2022.

3. Since review application No. 40 of 2026 inre O.A. No. 138 of 2022 has been allowed and order dated 07.092022 is recalled , this execution application is dismissed having rendered infructuous.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 3)

Ex. A. No. 364 of 2024 Inre: O.A. No. 1124 of 2024

Sep/PO Ganesh Prasad Rana

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Response affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that he has already filed the undertaking but till today compliance has not been done and the matter has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

4. As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents four weeks further time is granted to comply the order and file compliance affidavit as directed earlier, failing which ADG-PS, IHQ, MoD shall be present before this Tribunal through virtual mode on the next date of listing to explain the cause of delay in implementation of the order.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 4)

Ex. A. No. 67 of 2025 Inre: O.A. No. 282 of 2024

Ex. Nk. Shamsher Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Response affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record.

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

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that GSL has been issued on 18.09.2026 and compliance is under process. He prays for and is granted further four weeks’ time to comply the order and file compliance affidavit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 5)

Ex. A. No. 70 of 2025 Inre: O.A. No. 1134 of 2023

Ex. L/Nk. Bhupendra Singh Sirola

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Response affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record.

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the order has been complied with. GSL has been issued on 20.08.2026 and corrigendum PPO has also been issued on 30.09.2026 and payment has been made to the applicant. Grievance of the applicant has been redressed.

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant conceded the fact that order has been complied with.

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

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 6)

Ex. A. No. 71 of 2025 Inre: O.A. No. 1144 of 2023

Ex. Nk Ravi G

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Response affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record.

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

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that undertaking has already been given to the respondents but order has not been complied with.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents stated that compliance is under process. He prays for and is granted further four weeks’ time to comply the order and file compliance affidavit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 7)

Ex. A. No. 354 of 2025 Inre: O.A. No. 289 of 2024

Ex. Nk. Pareshwar Prasad

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Vikram Singh Dhapola, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Vikaram Singh Dhapola, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Response affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record.

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

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that although Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order of this Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court but there is no stay order. He further submitted that compliance of the order is under process.

5. As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents four weeks further time is granted to comply the order, failing which responsible officer from the Department shall be present before this Tribunal through virtual mode on the next date of listing to explain the cause of delay in provisional implementation of the order.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 8)

Ex. A. No. 355 of 2025 Inre: O.A. No. 722 of 2022

Ex. Nb. Sub. Bhim Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri N.K. Papnoi, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri N.K. Papnoi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Response affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record.

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the compliance of the order is under process. He seeks some more time to file compliance affidavit. Allowed as prayed.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 9)

Ex. A. No. 356 of 2025 Inre: O.A. No. 283 of 2024

Hav. (MACP-1) Rajendra Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Anil Anthwal, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Anil Anthwal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the compliance of the order is under process. He seeks some more time to file compliance affidavit. Last opportunity is granted to comply the order failing which coercive order shall be passed against the respondents.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 10)

M.A. No.342 of 2024 with M.A. No. 343 of 2024 Inre: T.A. No. 102 of 2012

Ganesh Dutt

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

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 342 of 2024 & 343 of 2024

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has already filed objection on restoration application as well as on delay condonation application.

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

4. The applicant has filed restoration application for recall of order dated 09.09.2013 passed by this Tribunal in TA No. 102/2012 by which the TA was dismissed for non prosecution. Applicant has also filed delay condonation application.

5. There is delay of 10 years 05 months and 03 days in filing the restoration application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that when no information about the status of the case was intimated to the applicant he requested the present counsel to get the status of the case. On enquire from the Registry the applicant’s counsel came to know about the dismissal of his case. Thereafter the present counsel has got the certified copy of the order and filed the restoration application. Applicant’s counsel urged that delay in filing the restoration application should be condoned as there is no wilful or deliberate attempt to avoid the court proceedings on part of the applicant.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties vehemently opposed the delay condonation application and submitted that the applicant has not shown plausible reasons for condoning the delay. The grounds mentioned in the delay condonation application do not justify the delay. The

applicant should remain vigilant for his rights. Applicant has not explained the reasons for inordinate delay of more than 10 years in filing the restoration application.

7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. Perusal of the record reveals that the TA was dismissed on 09.09.2013 for non prosecution and since then the applicant has not approached this Tribunal for a long time.

9. Of course a liberal view should be taken, but the applicant has miserably failed to show any solid ground for approaching the Tribunal with inordinate delay of more than 10 years. The applicant has been negligent in preferring the restoration application. Restoration application has been moved after more than 10 years for which sufficient explanation has not been put forth. Applicant has slept over his rights.

10. In a case reported in Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & others (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 685), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the grant of condonation of delay held in paragraphs 26 as under : -

“26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuation right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.

11. In view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and keeping in view the factual position of the present case, the applicant has miserably failed to show the sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the Restoration Application.

12. The law on the point of delay condonation is that doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A Court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons who compete with Kumbhakarna or for that matter Rip Van Winkle.

13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, it is evident that the applicant has filed restoration application after more than 10 years for which sufficient explanation has not been given.

14. Delay condonation application lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, delay condonation application is dismissed.

16. Consequently, the Restoration application is also dismissed.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 11)

M.A. No. 800 of 2026 Inre: O.A. No. 569 of 2025

Ex. Spr. Shankar Dutt Kalony

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has moved amendment application. Copy of amendment application be provided to the respondents’ counsel who may file objection, if any, by the next date fixed.

3. List on 28.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No.12)

O.A. No. 185 of 2025 with M.A. No. 222 of 2025

Ex. Sub. Har Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents are present.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List for final hearing on 29.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 13)

O.A. No. 193 of 2025 with M.A. No. 229 of 2025

Ex. LEMP B.P. Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate Notes of the Registry

2. Reply filed on behalf of the applicant against the objection is taken on record.

3. List on 29.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 14)

O.A. No. 204 of 2025 with M.A. No. 240 of 2025

Ex. Sep. Bahadur Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Reply filed on behalf of the applicant against the objection is taken on record.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 15)

O.A. No. 205 of 2025

Ex. Nk. Khushal Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List for final hearing on 29.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 16) O.A. No. 845 of 2025 with M.A. No. 987 of 2025 Ex. Gnr Ajay Kumar

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Deepak Bhatt, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Deepak Bhatt, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents are present. M.A. No. 987 of 2025

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

3. There is delay of 14 years 08 months and 22 days in filing of this Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application to which the respondents have filed objection.

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant filed reply to the objection on delay condonation application which is taken on record. He submitted that the applicant earlier appointed Shri SP Gularia as his counsel but Shri SP Gularia has finally settled in Canada and applicant has no knowledge about his case so he could not approached this Tribunal.

5. Cause of delay shown in the affidavit annexed with the delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

6. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. O.A. No. 845 of 2025

7. This original application has been filed for grant of service benefits including release of GPF amount and disability pension.

8. Case needs adjudication.

9. Admit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 17)

O.A. No. 846 of 2025 with M.A. No. 988 of 2025

Ex. Rfn. Thakur Singh Bisht

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri N.K. Papnoi, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri N.K. Papnoi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant seeks time to file reply to the objection. Allowed as prayed.

3. List on 29.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 18) O.A. No. 847 of 2025 with M.A. No. 989 of 2025 Ex. Sep. Anand Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Tarun P.S. Takuli, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tarun P.S. Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents are present. M.A. No. 989 of 2025

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

3. There is delay of 30 years 10 months and 29 days in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application to which the objection has also been filed by the respondents.

4. 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. 847 of 2026

6. This original application has been filed for grant of disability pension, service pension and retiral benefits.

7. Case needs adjudication.

8. Admit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 19)

O.A. No. 851 of 2025

Smt. Beena D/o Late Sub. Bhim Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that he wants to withdraw this O.A.

3. Permitted.

4. Accordingly, the instant O.A is dismissed as withdrawn.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 20) O.A. No. 174 of 2026 with M.A. No. 226 of 2026

Ex. L/Nk. Shiv Charan Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Avidit Noliyal, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Avidit Noliyal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Reply to objection on delay condonation application filed by the applicant is taken on record. M.A. No. 226 of 2026

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

4. There is delay of 11 years and 38 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. 174 of 2026

6. This original application pertains to administrative discharge of the applicant.

7. Case needs adjudication.

8. Admit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 21) O.A. No. 176 of 2026

Ex. Sub. (Hony. Capt.) Tara Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Vikram Singh Dhapola, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Vikram Singh Dhapola, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four weeks further time to file rejoinder affidavit.

3. List on 29.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 22) O.A. No. 177 of 2026

Khildev Singh Nephew of Late Smt. Jethuli Devi W/o Late Pnr Pratap Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri N.K. Papnoi, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri N.K. Papnoi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that this O.A is not maintainable. He further submitted that the applicant is nephew of the deceased soldier, and he being not first line tree of the family, is not entitled to any pensionary benefits for which purpose he will file objection on affidavit.

3. List on 29.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 23)

O.A. No. 652 of 2026

Sep. Ramesh Chandra Joshi (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd), Advocate

Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks further time to file counter affidavit.

3. List on 29.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 24)

O.A. No. 654 of 2026

Sep. Bhupendra Singh (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd), Advocate

Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate Notes of the Registry

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks further time to file counter affidavit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 25)

O.A. No. 655 of 2026

Nk. Shyam Singh Rautela (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd), Advocate

Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate Notes of the Registry

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks further time to file counter affidavit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 26)

O.A. No. 656 of 2026

Nk. Rajendra Singh Dhami (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd), Advocate

Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks further time to file counter affidavit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 27)

O.A. No. 659 of 2026

Sep. Lalita Prasad (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd), Advocate

Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks further time to file counter affidavit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 28)

O.A. No. 660 of 2026

Sep. Balwant Singh (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd), Advocate

Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks further time to file counter affidavit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 29)

O.A. No. 710 of 2026

Sep. Hayat Singh (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd), Advocate

Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks further time to file counter affidavit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 30)

O.A. No. 711 of 2026 Nk. Dalip Singh (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd), Advocate

Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate Notes of the Registry

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks further time to file counter affidavit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 31)

O.A. No. 712 of 2026

Sep. Gopal Datt (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (Retd), Advocate

Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks further time to file counter affidavit.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 32) O.A. (A) No. 175 of 2026 with M.A. No. 227 of 2026

Ex. Hav. Devendra Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Avidit Noliyal, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Avidit Noliyal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A. No. 227 of 2026

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

3. There is delay of 04 years 03 months and 18 days in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application to which the objection has been filed by the respondents.

4. 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. (A) No. 175 of 2026

6. This original application has been filed against the findings of the DCM, special findings of DCM.

7. Case needs adjudication.

8. Admit.

10. Respondents are also directed to produce original documents pertaining to this case for perusal of the Bench on the next date fixed.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 33)

O.A. No. 187 of 2025

Ex. L/Nk Pankaj Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri N.K. Papnoi, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate Notes of the Registry

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant seeks some more time to file supplementary affidavit. Allowed.

3. List on 29.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 34)

O.A. No. 196 of 2025

Ex. Sub. Laxman Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Kishore Rai, Advocate Shri Vikram Singh Dhapola, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant seeks some more time to argue this case.

3. List on 29.01.2027.