Daily order sheet, CB J & N, 07 Oct 2026 on 7 October 2026

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

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tarun P.S. Takuli, 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. 1203 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 04 years, 01 month and 03 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. 993 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. 2)

O.A. No. 994 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1204 of 2026

Jagmohan Singh Rautela

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 the respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in the future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tarun P.S. Takuli, 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. 1204 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 09 months and 03 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. 994 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. 3)

O.A. No. 995 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1205 of 2026

Mathura Datt

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 the respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in the future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tarun P.S. Takuli, 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. 1205 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 02 years, 06 months and 03 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. 995 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. 4)

O.A. No. 996 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1206 of 2026

Pushkar Singh Rana

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 the respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in the future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tarun P.S Takuli, 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. 1206 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 04 years, 01 month and 03 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. 996 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. 5)

O.A. No. 997 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1207 of 2026

Prem Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Tatun 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 the respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in the future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tatun P.S. Takuli, 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. 1207 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 04 years, 10 months and 18 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. 997 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. 6)

O.A. No. 998 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1208 of 2026

Pratap Singh Rana

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 the respondents is taken on record. His name be shown as Counsel for the respondents in the future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tatun P.S. Takuli, 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. 1208 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 04 years, 01 month and 03 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. 998 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. 7)

O.A. No. 999 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1209 of 2026

Bhawan 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 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 the future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tatun P.S. Takuli, 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. 1209 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 04 years, 01 month and 03 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. 999 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. 8)

O.A. No. 1000 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1210 of 2026

Shyam Datt Pant

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 the future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tatun P.S. Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1210 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 02 years, 08 months and 03 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. 1000 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. 9)

O.A. No. 1001 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1211 of 2026

Jagdish Chand

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 the future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tatun P.S. Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1211 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 23 years, 11 month and 19 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. 1001 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. 10)

O.A. No. 1002 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1212 of 2026

Rajender 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 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 the future cause list.

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tatun P.S. Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1212 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 02 years, 10 months and 03 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. 1002 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. 11)

Ex. A. No. 56 of 2022 Inre : O.A. No. 185 of 2021

Ex. Nk. Mohan Chandra Joshi

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. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Tatun P.S. Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the order has been complied with and nothing remains in the matter to adjudicate.

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.

5. Cost so deposited by the respondents shall be remitted to the applicant.

ORDER SHEET

(Suppl. Sl. No. 12)

O.A. No. 279 of 2023

Ex. Nk. (TS) Surendra Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri C.S. Rawat, 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. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri C.S. Rawat and Shri Anil Anthwal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant filed case law in support of his arguments, which is taken on record.

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks some more time to argue the matter. Time as prayed is allowed as a last opportunity.

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 1) Ex. A. No. 54 of 2022 Inre : O.A. No. 550 of 2020

Ex. Nb. Sub. Diwan 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 Rajesh Sharma, 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 Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

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

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.

6. Cost so deposited by the respondents shall be remitted to the applicant.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 2)

Ex. A. No. 201 of 2022 Inre : O.A. No. 496 of 2020

Sheri Chand S/o Late Ex. Nk. Kashi Chand

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. Notice was duly served to the Respondent No. 5 (Bank) but nobody turned up on behalf of the respondent.

3. So in this circumstances, ld. Counsel for the applicant requested to issue notice by dasti as well as by registered post. Applicant’s counsel is directed to take steps within 15 days.

4. List on 27.01. 2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 3)

Ex. A. No. 203 of 2022 Inre : O.A. No. 159 of 2021

Smt. Devki Devi W/o Ex. Sep. Jagdish Chand

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 respondents submits that the order has been complied with. PPO has been issued and payment will be done shortly.

3. Since the order has been complied with, this Execution application is disposed of with full satisfaction. However, if any grievance is left, applicant may approach this Tribunal again.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 4)

Ex. A. No. 114 of 2024 Inre : O.A. No. 284 of 2023

Ex. Nb. Sub. Mahipal 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 on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

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

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

5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that writ petition filed by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court has been now dismissed on 17.09.2026.

6. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that conditional GSL has already been issued on 05.08.2026 and compliance is under process. He prays for and is granted further four weeks’ time to comply the order and file compliance affidavit.

7. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 5)

Ex. A. No. 116 of 2024 Inre : O.A. No. 1034 of 2022

Sub. Maj. Navin Chandra Mathpal (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. 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. Heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perused the records.

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

4. In this case, the O.A was decided on 11.10.2023. Three years have already passed but order has been complied with and medical claim of the applicant is still pending.

5. In these circumstances, there is no other option, Responsible Officer 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.

6. List on 27.01.2027.

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

8. Meanwhile, if the order is complied with, there will be no need of personal appearance.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 6)

Ex. A. No. 117 of 2024 Inre : O.A. No. 1033 of 2022

Ex. Hav. Uttam 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 respondents submits that the order has been complied with. PPO has been issued on 03.08.2026 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

(Sl. No. 7)

Ex. A. No. 118 of 2024 Inre : O.A. No. 723 of 2022

Ex. Nk. Himmat 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 Ketan Aswal holding brief for Shri N.K. Papnoi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Undertaking of the applicant has already been filed by the applicant’s counsel but compliance is still pending.

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks some more time which is allowed as a last opportunity. It is made clear that if order is not complied with by the next date of listing then the coercive action shall be taken against the respondents.

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 8)

Ex. A. No. 363 of 2024 Inre : O.A. No. 1127 of 2023

Ex. Hav. Raghuveer Singh Mahar

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. Compliance affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record.

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the order has been complied with. PPO has been issued on 17.09.2026 and payment has also been made to the applicant.

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. 9)

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. Ld. Counsel for the respondents requested to post this matter on 08.10.2026.

3. List on 08.10.2026.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 10)

O.A. No. 322 of 2024

Ex. Nk. Tribhuwan Kumar Dalakoti

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. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the ld. Counsel for the applicant is taken on record which is duly received by the respondents’ counsel.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List for final hearing on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 11)

O.A. No. 199 of 2025

Ex. Hav. Prem Lal

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. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the ld. Counsel for the applicant is taken on record which is duly received by the respondents’ counsel.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List for final hearing on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No.12)

O.A. No. 566 of 2025

Ex. Rect. Harendra 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 ld. Counsel for the applicant is taken on record which is duly received by the respondents’ counsel.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List for final hearing on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 13)

O.A. No. 836 of 2025

Rfn. Surendra Singh (Retd.)

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 : Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Senior Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Kishore Rai and Shri Anil Anthwal, 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 ld. Counsel for the applicant is taken on record which is duly received by the respondents’ counsel.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List for final hearing on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 14)

O.A. No. 837 of 2025

Ex. Sep. (WM) Pushkar 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 ld. Counsel for the applicant is taken on record which is duly received by the respondents’ counsel.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List for final hearing on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 15)

O.A. No. 839 of 2025 with M.A. No. 981 of 2025

Ex. Hav. Prakash Karki

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 filed objection alongwith an affidavit which is taken on record.

3. In pursuance of order dated 11.03.2026, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has not carryout the amendment as directed by this Bench.

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant is directed to carry out the amendment as directed and also take steps for issuance of the notice to newly impleaded necessary patties within a month.

5. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 16)

O.A. No. 840 of 2025 with M.A. No. 982 of 2025

Ex. Hav. Darwan Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Anil Anthwal, 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 Anil Anthwal and Shri Kishore Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A. No. 982 of 2025

2. There is delay of 26 years 01 month and 21 days in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application for condoning the delay in filing the Original Application. He urged that delay in filing the applications should be condoned as there is no wilful or deliberate attempt to avoid the court proceedings on part of the applicant.

3. 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 26 years in filing the original application.

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

5. Perusal of the record reveals that applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 25.05.1967 and after rendering about more than 22 years he was discharged from service on 31.05.1989. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that First Appeal was rejected vide order dated 01.03.1997 and cause of action for disability pension is continuing/ recurring in nature. The delay in filing the Original Application is about 26 years.

6. 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 about 26 years. The applicant has been negligent in preferring the O.A. Original application has been moved after more than 26 years for which sufficient explanation has not been put forth. Applicant has slept over his rights.

7. 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.

8. 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 Original Application.

9. 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.

10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, it is evident that the applicant has filed original application after more than 26 years for which sufficient explanation has not been given.

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

12. Accordingly, delay condonation application is dismissed.

13. Consequently, the original application is also dismissed at the admission stage itself.

14. Connected M.P(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 15.No order as to costs.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 17)

O.A. No. 843 of 2025 with M.A. No. 985 of 2025

Ex. Spr/Dvr/PMT Pushkar 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. M.A. No. 985 of 2025

2. There is delay of 30 years 05 months and 21 days in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application for condoning the delay in filing the Original Application. He urged that delay in filing the applications should be condoned as there is no wilful or deliberate attempt to avoid the court proceedings on part of the applicant.

3. 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 30 years in filing the original application.

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

5. Perusal of the record reveals that applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 12.11.1983 and after rendering about more than 11 years he was discharged from service on 31.10.1992 under rule 13(3) Item -III(V) of the Army Rules 1964. The delay in filing the Original Application is about 26 years.

6. 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 about more than 30 years. The applicant has been negligent in preferring the O.A. Original application has been moved after more than 30 years for which sufficient explanation has not been put forth. Applicant has slept over his rights.

7. 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.

8. 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 Original Application.

9. 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.

10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, it is evident that the applicant has filed original application after more than 26 years for which sufficient explanation has not been given.

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

12. Accordingly, delay condonation application is dismissed.

13. Consequently, the original application is also dismissed at the admission stage itself.

14. Connected M.P(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 15.No order as to costs.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 18)

O.A. No. 844 of 2025

Vinita Subba D/o Ex. Hav. Late Shamsher Bahadur Subba 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 ld. Counsel for the applicant is taken on record which is duly received by the respondents’ counsel.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List for final hearing on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 19)

O.A. No. 848 of 2025

Ex. Nb. Sub. Rajendra 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 : Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate Notes of the Registry

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

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

3. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 20) O.A. No. 849 of 2025 with M.A. No. 995 of 2025 Ex. Nb. Sub. Narendra 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. M.A. No. 995 of 2025

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

3. There is delay of more than 20 years in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application.

4. Reply to the objection against the delay condonation application filed by the applicant is taken on record.

5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not aware of his case and he is living in remote area so earlier he could not approach the Court. He also submitted that the amputation has been done to the applicant. 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.

7. 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.

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.

11. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 21)

O.A. No. 850 of 2025 with M.A. No. 992 of 2025

Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Ex. Sub. Narayan 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. M.A. No. 992 of 2026

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

3. There is delay of more than 31 years in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application.

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is wife of ex- serviceman and due to unaware reasons she could not approach earlier before this Bench. 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.

6. This original application has been filed for grant of LTA.

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.

10. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 22)

O.A. No. 852 of 2025

Ex. Hav. Kishan Chand

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Amit Kapri, 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 Amit Kapri, 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 file reply to objection filed by the respondents. Time is allowed.

3. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 23)

O.A. No. 173 of 2026 with M.A. No. 225 of 2026

Smt. Durga Rani W/o Late Sep (Spr) Prem Mohan Kala

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Shashank Pandey, 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 Shashank Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. In pursuance of order dated 05.08.2026, amendment has not been carried out by the applicant.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that he shall carry out the amendment as directed vide order dated 05.08.2026 during the course of the day and seeks time to file reply to the objection on delay condonation application. Time is allowed.

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 24) O.A. No. 193 of 2026

Hav. Safar Chhetri

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. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has filed withdrawal application to withdraw the earlier counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Today, respondents’ counsel also filed fresh counter affidavit which is taken on record. Withdrawal of earlier counter affidavit is allowed.

3. By means of fresh counter affidavit, ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the grievance as raised in the O.A is duly redressed and notional increment is granted to the applicant. For this purpose, a corrigendum PPO has already been issued on 28.07.2026 which is annexed at page No. 37- 38 of the counter affidavit.

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the grievance which is raised in the O.A is duly redressed.

5. In view of above, this O.A is disposed of.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 25) O.A. No. 194 of 2026 Rect. Mohit 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. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the ld. Counsel for the applicant is taken on record which is duly received by the respondents’ counsel.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List for final hearing on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 26)

O.A. No. 643 of 2026

Nk. Laxmi 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 : 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. Counter affidavit has not been filed by the respondents.

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted further four weeks time to file Counter Affidavit.

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 27) O.A. No. 644 of 2026 with M.A. No. 785 of 2026

Sep. Bhagwan Singh Miyan

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. M.A. No. 785 of 2026

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

3. There is delay of more than 03 years in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application.

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has filed objection to the delay condonation application which is taken on record.

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.

7. This original application has been filed for grant of terminal gratuity.

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.

11. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

Sl. No. 28) O.A. No. 645 of 2026 with M.A. No. 786 of 2026

Nk. Anand Ballabh (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. M.A. No. 786 of 2026

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

3. There is delay of more than 29 years in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application.

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents vehemently objected and stated that there is delay of more than 29 years and no cogent reason has been assigned by the applicant in the delay condonation application.

5. Matter pertains to terminal gratuity. 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.

7. This original application has been filed for grant of terminal gratuity.

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.

11. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 29)

O.A. No. 646 of 2026 with M.A. No. 787 of 2026

Ex. Rifleman Rajendra Singh Rawat

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

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. Objection to the delay condonation application filed by the respondents is taken on record.

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

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 30)

O.A. No. 647 of 2026 with M.A. No. 788 of 2026

Veteran Rect. Narayan Singh

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. Objection to the delay condonation application filed by the respondents is taken on record.

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

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 31)

O.A. No. 651 of 2026

Sarita Devi W/o Nk. Late Mohan Singh & Another

Applicants By Legal Practitioner for the Applicants : 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 applicants and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that parawise comments are still awaited. He prays for and is granted further four weeks time to file Counter Affidavit.

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 32)

O.A. No. 653 of 2026 with M.A. No. 795 of 2026

Ex. Rect. Yashwant Singh

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. Objection to the delay condonation application filed by the respondents is taken on record.

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

4. List on 28.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 33)

O.A. No. 658 of 2026 with M.A. No. 802 of 2026

Rifleman Kharka Singh Thapa (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

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. Objection to the delay condonation application filed by the respondents is taken on record.

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

4. List on 28.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 34)

O.A. No. 661 of 2026

Ex. Rect. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra

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

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. Ld. Counsel for the respondents filed an applicant for deletion of respondent No. 2 i.e. ADG-PS-4 and respondent No. 4 i.e Officer-in-Charge, EME Records.

3. It is submitted that although ADG-PS-4 is not necessary party but EME Records is necessary party and should be retained.

4. So in these circumstances, Respondent No. 2 be deleted as he is not necessary party.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks time to file counter affidavit. Allowed.

6. List on 28.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 35) O.A. No. 662 of 2026 with M.A. No. 806 of 2026

Nk. Indra 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. M.A. No. 806 of 2026

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

3. There is delay of more than one year in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application.

4. Objection to the delay condonation application filed by the respondents is taken on record.

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.

7. This original application has been filed for grant of pensionary benefits.

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.

11. List on 28.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 36) O.A. No. 712 of 2022

Lt. Col. Pankaj Ahuja (Retd.)

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. O.A is disposed of.

4. Detailed order on separate sheets.

5. Misc. Application(s), if any, pending for disposal, shall be treated to have been disposed of.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 37) O.A. No. 1136 of 2023

Geeta Devi Widow of Late Swr. Shabnam Kumar

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

Shri Mahavir Kohli, 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 applicant seeks time to move amendment application for amending the prayer clause. Allowed as prayed.

3. List on 28.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 38)

O.A. No. 1163 of 2023

Smt. Nandi Devi Widow of Late Kunwar Singh

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

Shri D.S. Mehta, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate

Shri Ketan Aswal, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri D.S. Mehta, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Ketan Aswal, Ld. counsel for Respondent No. 4 are present.

2. Shri Ketan Aswal, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No. 4 but his name is not shown in the cause list. Registry is directed to be careful and show his name in the future cause list as counsel for Respondent No. 4.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the case. Allowed.

4. List on 28.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 39)

O.A. No. 165 of 2024

Smt. Revati Devi W/o Ex. Sep. Gopal Singh

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

Shri Deepak Singh Bisht, Advocate

Shri Shivam Rana, 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, Advocate holding brief for Shri Deepak Singh Bisht, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue this matter. Allowed.

3. List on 28.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 40)

O.A. No. 274 of 2024

Col. Jagjeet Singh Rautela (Retd)

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 case is listed today for final hearing.

3. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

4. By means of this short counter affidavit, ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that grievance raised in the O.A is duly redressed and corrigendum PPO has already been issued and payment has also been done in the month of May 2026.

5. Since grievance of the applicant has redressed, hence this O.A has become infructuous.

6. Accordingly, the O.A is dismissed having been infructuous.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 41)

O.A. No. 930 of 2024

Nk. (TS) Devendra Kumar Verma

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 respondents submits that similar matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

3. List on 09.04.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 42)

O.A. No. 933 of 2024

Smt. Savitri Devi W/o L/Nk Balwendra 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. This case is listed today for final hearing.

3. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

4. By means of this short counter affidavit, ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that grievance raised in the O.A is duly redressed and GSL has been issued.

5. Since the GSL has already been issued and grievance of the applicant has redressed, hence this O.A has become infructuous.

6. Accordingly, the O.A No. 933 of 2024 is dismissed having been infructuous.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 43)

O.A. No. 184 of 2025

Ex. Nk. Devendra Kumar

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. Ld. Counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment.

3. Case is adjourned accordingly.

4. List on 28.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 44)

O.A. No. 607 of 2026 with M.A. No. 740 of 2026

Ex. Nk. Khyali Charan Joshi

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate

Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate

Shri Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate

Shri Piyush Tiwari, 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 holding brief of Shri Piysuh Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment.

3. Case is adjourned accordingly.

4. List on 28.01.2027.