Daily order sheet, CB J & N, 06 Oct 2026 on 6 October 2026

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate on behalf of the 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 P.S. Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1193 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 01 year, 02 months and 06 days in filing Original Application.

4. 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.

5. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. OA No. 983 of 2026

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

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

11. 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. 984 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1194 of 2026

Chatur 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 the 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 P.S. Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1194 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. 984 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. 985 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1195 of 2026

Laxman 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 the 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 P.S. Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1195 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 02 years, 09 months and 22 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. 985 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. 986 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1196 of 2026

Rajendra Singh Negi

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 the 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 P.S. Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1196 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. 986 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. 987 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1197 of 2026

Jeet 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 the 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 P.S. Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1197 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 04 years, 07 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. 987 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. 988 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1198 of 2026

Rami 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 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 future cause list.

2. 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. M.A No. 1198 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 04 years, 03 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. 988 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. 989 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1199 of 2026

Jiwan 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 the 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 P.S. Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1199 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. 989 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. 990 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1200 of 2026

Purushotam Tiwari

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 future cause list.

2. 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. M.A No. 1200 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. 990 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. 991 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1201 of 2026

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. 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 future cause list.

2. 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. M.A No. 1201 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. 991 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. 992 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1202 of 2026

Jagadesh 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 the 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 P.S. Takuli, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present. M.A No. 1202 of 2026

3. There is a delay of 02 years, 02 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. 992 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

(Sl. No. 1)

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. In this case certain defects have been raised by the Registry.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant seeks some more time to remove the defects. Time as prayed is allowed.

4. List on 08.10.2026.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 2)

Ex. A. No. 74 of 2022 Inre : O.A. No. 557 of 2020

Ex. Sep. Mahesh 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 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 credited in the account of the applicant. No grievance is left.

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 and balance cost, if any, is waived off.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 3)

Ex. A. No. 75 of 2022 Inre : O.A. No. 556 of 2020

Ex. Sep. Khim 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. Heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perused the records.

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

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that order has been complied with. GSL has already been issued on 06.04.2026 and payment has been made to the applicant.

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 and balance cost, if any, is waived off.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 4)

Ex. A. No. 51 of 2023 with M.A. No. 1058 of 2024 Inre : O.A. No. 432 of 2021

Hav. Rajan Kumar

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. Compliance affidavit has not been filed by the respondents.

4. 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 and compliance is under process.

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

6. List on 25.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 5)

Ex. A. No. 54 of 2023 Inre : O.A. No. 154 of 2022

L/Nk. Navdeep Gaur

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. 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 and payment has also been credited in the account of the applicant.

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

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 6)

Ex. A. No. 55 of 2023 Inre : O.A. No. 128 of 2022

Ex. Nk. Than 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 Kishore Rai holding brief for Shri N.K. Papnoi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Status report filed by 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 of Uttarakhand has been now dismissed on 17.09.2026 and compliance is under process.

6. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted further four weeks’ time to comply the order and file compliance affidavit.

7. List on 25.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 7)

Ex. A. No. 338 of 2023 Inre : O.A. No. 705 of 2022

Ex. L/Nk. Mohan 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. Heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perused the records.

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

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the writ petition which was filed by the respondents against the order of this Bench has now been dismissed on 18.06.2026.

5. Since writ petition is dismissed so there is no other option, respondents are bound to comply the order in letter and spirit.

6. Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks time to comply the order for which four weeks time is allowed.

7. It is made clear that if order is not complied with till the next date of listing, ADG-PS, IHQ, MoD shall be present before this Tribunal through virtual mode to explain the cause of delay in implementation of the order passed by this Bench.

8. List on 25.01.2027.

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

10. Meanwhile, if the order is complied with, there will be no need of personal appearance of ADG-PS.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 8)

Ex. A. No. 340 of 2023 Inre : O.A. No. 716 of 2022

Ex. Sub. Amrendra 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. 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 and PPO has been issued on 24.09.2026.

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

(Sl. No. 9)

Ex. A. No. 344 of 2023 Inre : O.A. No. 156 of 2022

Ex. Hav. Chakradhar Prasad Penuly

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 seeks time to file substitution applicant. Time as prayed is allowed.

3. List on 25.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 10)

Ex. A. No. 345 of 2023 Inre : O.A. No. 1032 of 2022

Ex. Hav. Surendra 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. 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 PPO has been issued on 07.08.2026.

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

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 11)

Ex. A. No. 347 of 2023 Inre : O.A. No. 475 of 2022

Ex. Nk. Inder Ram

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri C.S. Rawat, 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, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

3. Compliance affidavit has not been filed, however, status report filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that writ petition was filed against order of this Tribunal which has been dismissed vide order dated 18.06.2026. He further submits that further time be allowed to comply order of this Tribunal, which is allowed.

5. Cost deposited by the respondents shall be released in favour of the applicant.

6. Respondents are directed to comply order of this Tribunal on or before the next date of listing, failing which coercive action shall be taken against the respondents for non-compliance of order of this Tribunal.

7. List on 25.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No.12)

Ex. A. No. 348 of 2023 Inre : O.A. No. 158 of 2022

Ex. Nk. Raghunandan Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri C.S. Rawat, 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, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

3. Compliance affidavit has not been filed, however, status report filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that writ petition was filed against order of this Tribunal which has been dismissed vide order dated 18.06.2026. He further submits that further time be allowed to comply order of this Tribunal, which is allowed.

5. Cost deposited by the respondents shall be released in favour of the applicant.

6. Respondents are directed to comply order of this Tribunal on or before the next date of listing, failing which coercive action shall be taken against the respondents for non-compliance of order of this Tribunal.

7. List on 25.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 13)

Ex. A. No. 349 of 2023 Inre : O.A. No. 136 of 2022

Ex. Sep. Dhan 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 Kishore Rai, Advocate holding brief of Shri N.K. Papnoi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

3. Affidavit of compliance has not been filed, however, status report filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

4. By means of status report, learned counsel for the respondents submits that writ petition filed against order of this Tribunal has been dismissed on 17.09.2026. He seeks some more time to file compliance affidavit, which is allowed.

5. List on 25.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 14)

Ex. A. No. 82 of 2024 Inre : O.A. No. 778 of 2022

Ganesh Singh S/o Late Gnr. Gopal Singh (Retd.)

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

Shri Prabhat Bohra, 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 P.S. Bohra and Shri Prabhat Bohra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

3. Affidavit of compliance has not been filed. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that in this case Govt Sanction Letter has been issued on 16.02.2026 but corrigendum PPO has not been issued.

4. About eight months have passed from the date of issue of GSL but compliance has not been done by the respondents.

5. If the compliance is not done on or before the next date of listing, responsible officer of the respondents/representative of PCDA (P) shall appear before this Tribunal on next date of listing for non compliance of order of this Tribunal. If compliance is done by the next date, there is no need for appearance of responsible officer/representative of PCDA (P).

6. Cost imposed against the respondents shall be deposited by the respondents by the next date fixed and it shall be remitted in favour of the applicant.

7. List on 25.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 15)

Ex. A. No. 112 of 2024 Inre : O.A. No. 1031 of 2022

Ex. Hav. Mangal Singh Samant

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 learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Affidavit of compliance has not been filed on behalf of the respondents.

4. Response affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that in this case Govt Sanction Letter dated 23.09.2026 has been issued and compliance is under process. He seeks and is allowed some more time to file compliance affidavit, which is allowed.

6. List on 25.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 16)

Ex. A. No. 63 of 2025 Inre : O.A. No. 706 of 2022

Ex. Sep. Gusain Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Bipin Bihari, 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 Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present. None is present on behalf of the applicant.

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

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

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that writ petition No 379/2025 filed against order passed by this Tribunal is pending before Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand.

5. List on 25.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 17)

Ex. A. No. 64 of 2025 Inre : O.A. No. 1119 of 2023

Ex. Hav. Devendra 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. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

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

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that in pursuance of order dated 11.03.2026 passed by this Tribunal, the applicant has already filed undertaking but compliance has not been done.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that writ petition filed against order of this Tribunal is pending before High Court of Uttarakhand. He seeks some more time to file response affidavit, which is allowed.

6. List on 25.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 18)

Ex. A. No. 66 of 2025 Inre : O.A. No. 1122 of 2023

Ex. L/Nk. Prakash Chandra

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 learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. By means of compliance affidavit, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that Govt Sanction Letter has been issued on 10.09.2026 and the compliance is under process. He seeks some more time to file affidavit of compliance, which is allowed.

4. List on 25.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 19)

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

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

4. By means of compliance affidavit, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that in this case corrigendum PPO has been issued on 02.09.2026.

5. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the applicant seeks two days’ time to confirm receipt of corrigendum PPO by the applicant, which is allowed.

6. List on 08.10.2026.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 20) O.A. No. 1159 of 2023

Ex. Sep. Madan Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Rajendra Arya, 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 Rajendra Arya, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Today, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit, which is taken on record. Copy of rejoinder affidavit has been duly received by Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List on 27.01.2027 for hearing.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 21) O.A. No. 272 of 2024 with M.A. No. 326 of 2024

Ex. Hav. Kuldeep Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Apoorv Nautiyal, Advocate

Shri Vinod Nautiyal, Advocate

Shri Shailendra Nautiyal, 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 Shivam, Advocate holding brief of Shri Apporv Nautiyal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Brief holder seeks some more time to file reply to objection on delay condonation application, which is allowed.

3. As prayed, list on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 22)

O.A. No. 284 of 2024

Satish Kumar Singh S/o Late Hav. Kishan Singh through Legal Guardian Santosh 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. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List on 27.01.2027 for final hearing.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 23)

O.A. No. 621 of 2024

Ex. Sep. Madan Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Deepak Singh Bisht, Advocate

Shri Ajit Kumar Yadav, 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, Advocate holding brief of Shri Deepak Singh Bisht, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. In this case, notice was required to be issued to respondent No 5 for which steps were required to be taken by the applicant. Since steps have not been taken by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, no notice has been issued to respondent No 5.

3. Brief holder submits that he will inform Ld. Counsel for the applicant to take steps shortly. He seeks sometime for taking steps for issuance of notice to respondent No 5.

4. As prayed, list on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 24)

O.A. No. 165 of 2025 with M.A. No. 196 of 2025

Smt. Radha Devi W/o Ex. Sep. (Late) Ram Nath

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 Kishore Rai, Advocate holding brief of Shri N.K. Papnoi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Objection filed on behalf of the respondents against delay condonation application is taken on record. Ld. Counsel for the applicant is directed to file reply by the next date fixed.

3. If learned counsel for the applicant fails to file reply to objection and also fails to appear before this Tribunal on next date of listing, this case shall be dismissed in default.

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 25)

O.A. No. 183 of 2025 with M.A. No. 221 of 2025

Nirmala Devi W/o Late Ex. Nk. Mahesh Chandra

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. Ld. Counsel for the applicant is not inclined to file rejoinder affidavit.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List on 27.01.2027 for hearing.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 26)

O.A. No. 833 of 2025

Govindi Devi Daughter of Ex. Hav. Late Dhan Singh

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

1. 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.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List on 27.01.2027 for hearing.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 27)

O.A. No. 834 of 2025

Ex. Nk. LTS Gunner GD Tara Chander Pandey

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

Shri Anil Anthawal, Advocate

Shri Vivek Kumar, 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 Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri C.S. Rawat and Shri Anil Anthwal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. List on 27.01.2027 for hearing.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 28)

O.A. No. 185 of 2026

Rfn. Birendra 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 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 physically present.

2. Counter Affidavit filed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents is taken on record.

3. Copy of Counter Affidavit is duly received by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant.

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four weeks time to file Rejoinder Affidavit.

5. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 29)

O.A. No. 187 of 2026

Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani (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 physically present.

2. Counter Affidavit filed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents is taken on record.

3. Copy of Counter Affidavit is duly received by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant.

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four weeks time to file Rejoinder Affidavit.

5. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 30)

O.A. No. 188 of 2026

Laleeta D/o Rfn. Late Govind Singh Negi

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 physically present.

2. Counter Affidavit filed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents is taken on record.

3. Copy of Counter Affidavit is duly received by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant.

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four weeks time to file Rejoinder Affidavit.

5. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 31)

O.A. No. 189 of 2026

Rfn. Prem 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. 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 physically present.

2. Counter Affidavit filed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents is taken on record.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant is not inclined to file Rejoinder Affidavit.

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

5. Original Application is disposed off.

6. For orders, see our order passed on separate sheets.

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

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 32)

O.A. No. 190 of 2026

Sub. Khilap 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 physically present.

2. Counter Affidavit filed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents is taken on record. The copy of Counter Affidavit is duly received by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four weeks time to file Rejoinder Affidavit.

4. Original documents pertaining to grant of Hony. Commission to the applicant are required for perusal.

5. The respondents are directed to produce original document pertaining to grant of Honorary Commission to the applicant on the next date fixed for perusal of the Tribunal.

6. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 33)

O.A. No. 191 of 2026 with M.A. No. 242 of 2026

Ex. Nk. Hayat 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. Objection on 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. Time as prayed is allowed.

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 34)

O.A. No. 192 of 2026

Nk. Jit Pal 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. 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. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to file rejoinder affidavit.

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 35)

O.A. No. 685 of 2026 with M.A. No. 832 of 2026

Prateema Devi (Female) D/o Late Shri Kishan Singh

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

Shri Amit Kapri, Advocate

Shri Sachin Veer Singh, 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 on 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. Time as prayed is allowed.

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 36)

O.A. No. 708 of 2026 with M.A. No. 855 of 2026

Smt. Godambari Devi W/o L/Nk. Late Vinod Kumar

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. Objection on 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. Time as prayed is allowed.

4. Applicant’s counsel also seeks time to take steps for issuance of notice to the Bank. Allowed.

5. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 37)

O.A. No. 713 of 2026 with M.A. No. 861 of 2026

Khwahish Sharma D/o Late Nk. Amit Sharma

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, Advocate Notes of the Registry

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

2. Objection on 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. Time as prayed is allowed.

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 38)

R.A. No. 24 of 2026 Inre : O.A. No. 283 of 2023

Ex. Spr. Suresh Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri P.S. Bohra, 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 P.S. Bohra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Upreti, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that a review application filed by the UoI is listed for hearing on 25.01.2027. Hence this case may also be listed on 25.01.2027.

3. List on 25.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 39)

R.A. No. 34 of 2026 with M.A. No. 748 of 2026 Inre : O.A. No. 891 of 2024

Union of India & Others

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

Versus

Smt. Asha Devi Mother of Late Cpl. Ajeet Singh Bisht

Respondent By Legal Practitioner for Respondent : Shri Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the applicants and Shri Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

3. The applicants (Respondents in the O.A) have filed this Review Application under Rule 18 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008. By means of this Review Application, the applicants have prayed for review of the judgment and order dated 07.11.2025 passed in O.A No. 891 of 2024 by the bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar, Member (J) and Hon’ble Vice Admiral Atul Kumar Jain, Member (A) (Hon’ble Member-J is retired). This Court had allowed the Original Application and the respondents were directed to grant Ordinary Family Pension to the applicant of the O.A from the next date of death of her son i.e. w.e.f 25.04.2018 for life. The applicants have preferred the instant Review Application after passing of more than seven months, inter-alia on the grounds that grant of ordinary family pension to parents of a deceased Armed Forces Personnel is dealt in accordance with GoI MoD letter dated 26.08.1998 which states family pension to the parents will be admissible if the parents were wholly dependent on the Armed Forces Personnel when he/ she was alive and income criterion will be taken into account for both the parents when both are alive and it will be taken on single parent when only one of them is alive.

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

5. The applicant has filed this Review Application alongwith application for condonation of delay. As per registry, the application is delayed by 07

months and 22 days from the statutory period provided for filing of Review Application. Rule 18 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 postulates that no application shall be entertained beyond the period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed. Review Application No. 34 of 2026 seeks review of the judgment and order dated 07.11.2025 passed in O.A No. 891 of 2024. Admittedly, the Review Application has been filed beyond the period of 30 days, as such, it is not entertainable.

6. We have gone through the grounds and reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah Versus Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 157, has held that “No doubt, sufficient cause should be construed liberally on facts without any hard and fast rule and substantive rights of parties cannot be ignored on account of delay, but a distinction must be made between delay of few days and inordinate delay causing prejudice to the other side.”

8. In view of the above case laws and the facts and circumstances of the case, delay of more than 07 months in filing of Review Application is not liable to be condoned.

9. In our considered opinion, no sufficient ground is mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and day to day delay has not been explained. Hence, the application for condonation of delay has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.

10. Further, it is a settled proposition of law that the scope of the review is limited and until it is shown that there is error apparent on the face of record in the judgment and order sought to be reviewed, the same cannot be reviewed.

11. For ready reference, Order 47, Rule 1 sub-rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is reproduced below :- “1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) any person considering himself aggrieved-

a. by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

b. by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

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

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

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

14. So far as monthly income ceiling for dependents parents to claim family pension is concerned, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kartar Kaur & Another Vs. Union of India in CWP No. 19665 of 2009 has held that the income ceiling condition is discriminatory and

should not bar the petitioner from receiving ordinary family pension.

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

16. Accordingly, Review Application No. 34 of 2026 is also dismissed as being time barred and without merit.

17. Pending Misc. Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 40)

Diary No. 1719 of 2026 Inre : O.A. No. 891 of 2024

Smt. Asha Devi Mother of Late Cpl. Ajeet Singh Bisht

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Suresh Chandra Bhatt, 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 Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. In this case, certain defects have been raised by the Registry which have not been removed by the applicant’s counsel.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant seeks some more time to rectify the defects raised by the Registry. Time as prayed is allowed.

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 41)

O.A. No. 198 of 2022

Smt. Kausha Devi W/o Late Spr. Prem 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. Heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3. Original Application is dismissed.

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. 42)

O.A. No. 713 of 2022

Kundan Singh S/o Late Sep. Bhur 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. Order Reserved.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 43)

O.A. No. 1126 of 2023

Smt. Geeta Thapa Daughter of Late Rfn. Dev Bahadur

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. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

3. List for hearing on 27.01.2027.

4. In the meantime, reply, if any, may be filed by the respondents.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 44)

O.A. No. 1148 of 2023

Ex. Sep. Heman 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

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. During the course of the arguments, ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that show cause notice is not given to the applicant and without any opportunity of hearing, the respondents dismissed the applicant while the respondents’ counsel stated that show cause notice was given to the applicant but show cause notice as well as reply is not available on record.

3. Respondents are directed to bring on record the show cause notice which was given to the applicant as well as reply, till the next date of listing.

4. Copy of order be given to the Departmental Representative for necessary compliance.

5. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 45)

O.A. No. 271 of 2024

Smt. Deveshwari Rana W/o Late Jay Singh Rana

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Shailendra Nautiyal, Advocate

Shri Vinod Nautiyal, Advocate

Shri Apoorv Nautiyal 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 Shivam Nautini holding brief for Shri Apoorv Nautiyal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant seeks time to move amendment application. Time as prayed is allowed.

3. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 46)

O.A. No. 277 of 2024

Ex. Sep. (GD) Kamaljeet Singh

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

Lt. Col. Nidhikant Dhyani, 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 applicant seeks adjournment and submitted that he shall file the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in support of his argument.

3. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 47)

O.A. No. 345 of 2024

Nk. Kunwar Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate

Shri Piyush Tiwari, 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 Ms. Shalini Kautiyal holding brief for Shri Sandeep Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant seeks adjournment.

3. Case is adjourned.

4. List on 27.01.2027.

ORDER SHEET

(Sl. No. 48)

O.A. No. 264 of 2025

Veteran Sub. (Hony. Lt.) Govind Singh Rawat

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, 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 holding brief for Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Sr. Advocate for the respondents are present.

2. List on 27.01.2027.