Daily order sheet, C1, 04 Nov 2026 on 4 November 2026

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

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi and Shri Anuj Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant are present before the Court and Shri Chet Narayan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through video conferencing. M.A. No. 1282 of 2026

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

4. There is delay of 01 month and 07 days in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application. Cause of delay shown in the affidavit annexed with the delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

5. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. O.A. No. 1067 of 2026

6. This original application pertains to illegal discharge and reinstatement of the applicant.

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 12.05.2027.

RK/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 1 (Suppl. No. 2) OA No. 1069 of 2026 with MA No. 1285 of 2026 Sgt Ravindra Kumar Singh (Retd)

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

Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate Gunjan Singh, Advocate Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through video conferencing and Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the Court. M.A. No. 1285 of 2026

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

4. There is delay of only 13 days in filing of Original Application. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed delay condonation application. Cause of delay shown in the affidavit annexed with the delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay. Delay is condoned.

5. Delay condonation application stands disposed off. O.A. No. 1069 of 2026

6. This original application has been filed for grant of disability element of disability pension and matter pertains to GMO 2023.

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 12.05.2027.

RK/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No. 1 (Suppl. No. 3) OA No. 1071 of 2026 with MA No. 1287 of 2026

Sep Sunil Rajput

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

Shri Indra Mani Tripathi, Advocate Shri Krishan Kumar Singh,Advocate Shri Girish Chandra Tripathi, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Krishna Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Gyan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

4. There is delay of more than 04 years in filing this original application. Applicant has filed delay condonation application for condoning the delay.

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

6. List on 20.01.2027.

RK/-

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

OA No. 1073 of 2026 with MA No. 1288 of 2026

NK Surendra Singh (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, Advocate Gunjan Singh, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through video conferencing and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the Court.

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

4. There is delay of more than 15 years in filing this original application. Applicant has filed delay condonation application for condoning the delay.

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

6. List on 26.02.2027.

RK/-

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

DY. No. 3491 of 2026

Ex Hav Arun Pradhan

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

2. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Ashok Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through video conferencing and Ms. Preeti Mala, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the Court.

3. This is a defective application. Registry has raised certain objection but the applicant’s counsel submitted that he is unable to rectify the defect as pointed out by the Registry and further stated that he wants to withdraw this application.

4. Accordingly, applicant is permitted to withdraw this application with liberty to file afresh before the appropriate forum.

5. This Original Application stands dismissed as withdrawn.

RK/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex. A. No. 164 of 2025 Inre: OA No. 746 of 2023 Ex Nk Gajpal Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri KP Datta, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

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

3. Status report filed on the behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that earlier Department was considering to file writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court but now AMC Records make correspondence on 31.10.2026 for GSL sanction with Director General of Medical Services (Army) and copy is given to the ADG-PS (Legal) for compliance.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks some more time to file compliance affidavit.

6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that this execution matter is old one and more than 4 years have already passed but order has not been complied with by the respondents. So, respondents are hereby directed to comply the order in letter and spirit till the next date of listing otherwise ADG PS shall be present before this Tribunal through virtual mode to explain the reasons for non compliance of the order.

7. Cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the respondents has also not been deposited. Respondents are directed to immediately deposit the cost in the Registry which shall be remitted to the applicant.

8. List on 01.07.2027.

RK/-

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

Ex. A. No. 168 of 2025 Inre: OA No. 347 of 2023 Ex POELP Pankaj Kumar

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Manish Kumar Rai, Ld. Counsel for the applicant present through video conferencing and Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

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

3. By means of compliance affidavit, ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the order has been complied with. No grievance is left.

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.

RK/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex. A. No. 286 of 2025 Inre: OA No. 344 of 2024

Ex Sub Prakash Chandra Kandpal

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri KP Datta, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri KP Datta, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, 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 writ petition which is filed by the respondents assailing the order of this Tribunal is duly dismissed on 27.07.2026 and now compliance is under process.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent seeks some more time to comply the order and file compliance affidavit. Time as prayed is allowed.

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

7. List on 01.07.2027 .

RK/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex. A. No. 287 of 2025 Inre: OA No. 1021 of 2023 Ex Sub Mohan Chandra

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri KP Datta, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri KP Datta, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

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

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

4. Affidavit of responsible officer with regard to the present status of the execution and cause of delay in implementation of the order, filed on behalf of the respondents, is taken on record.

5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that writ petition which is filed by the respondents assailing the order of this tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court is duly dismissed on 30.03.2026 but till today compliance has not been done.

6. Officer from BEG Records, Roorkee is present virtually and stated that they have approached E-in-C Records on number of occasions but no reply is received and matter is still pending for execution.

7. In these circumstances, there is no other option, ADG-PS, IHQ, MoD shall be present before this Tribunal through virtual mode on the next date of listing to explain the cause of delay in implementation of the order.

8. List on 01.07.2027.

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.

RK/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex. A. No. 10 of 2026 Inre: OA No. 1138 of 2023 MWO Narendra Singh (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri R Chandra, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri R Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, 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 which is filed by the respondents assailing the order of this tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court is duly dismissed on 24.07.2026 but till today compliance has not been done.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that she has no instructions in the matter and she is unable to tell the progress/status of the case.

6. In this case, the O.A was decided on 19.11.2024. About two years have already passed. Matter is already settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court but the order has not been complied with.

7. In these circumstances, there is no other option, AOC, DAV 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.

8. It is made clear that if order is not complied with till the next date, cost of Rs. 10000/- shall be imposed upon the respondents.

9. List on 01.07.2027.

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

11. Meanwhile, if the order is complied with, there will be no need of personal appearance of AOC - DAV.

RK/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex. A. No. 12 of 2026 Inre: OA No. 109 of 2024

Sub (Retd) Rakesh Pati Tripathi

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Rahul Pal holding brief for Shri Keshav Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Bipin Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Affidavit with regard to the present status of the execution and cause of delay in implementation of the order, 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. By means of status report, ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that writ petition is to be filed against the order of this Bench before the Hon’ble High Court.

6. In this case, the O.A was decided on 23.07.2025. About one and half years have already passed, neither any writ petition has been filed by the respondents nor order has been complied with. Matter has already settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

7. In these circumstances, there is no other option, respondents are directed to comply the order in letter and spirit till the next date of listing otherwise ADG-PS, IHQ, MoD shall be present before this Tribunal through virtual mode on the next date of listing to explain the cause of delay in implementation of the order.

8. List on 02.07.2027.

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

RK/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex. A. No. 13 of 2026 Inre: OA No. 305 of 2024 Ex Sgt Anupam Singh

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Rahul Pal holding brief for Shri Keshav Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the Court and Shri Chet Narayan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through video conferencing.

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

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

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

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

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

7. List on 02.07.2027.

RK/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex. A. No. 43 of 2026 Inre: OA No. 537 of 2024

Sgt Andrews Antony Dass (Retd)

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Rahul Pal holding brief for Shri Keshav Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, 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. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that although Writ Petition (A) No. 14 of 2026 has been filed assailing the order of this Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court which is still pending but there is no stay order in the matter.

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

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

7. List on 02.07.2027.

RK/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex. A. No. 44 of 2026 Inre: OA No. 303 of 2024

Ex WO AK Pathriya

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Rahul Pal holding brief for Shri Keshav Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, 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. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that although Writ Petition No. 12 of 2026 has been filed assailing the order of this Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court which is still pending but there is no operative stay order in the matter.

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

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

7. List on 02.07.2027.

RK/-

ORDER SHEET

Ex. A. No. 45 of 2026 Inre: OA No. 239 of 2024

Sub Wakil Singh Yadava

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

2. Affidavit with regard to the present status of the execution and cause of delay in implementation of the order, filed on behalf of the respondents, is taken on record.

3. By means of status report, ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that earlier Review application was filed by the Department to review the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by this Bench but the review application filed by the respondents is duly dismissed on 18.05.2026. Now the respondents want to file a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court, so compliance has not been done.

4. Perusal of the status report reflects that till date no writ petition has been filed by the respondents and order has also not been complied with. Matter is already settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

5. In view of above, respondents are directed to comply the order in letter and spirit till the next date of listing and file compliance affidavit on payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- in the Registry which shall be remitted to the applicant.

6. List on 02.07.2027.

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

RK/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 1177 of 2023

Lt. Col. Sunil Kumar Patnaik (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Aditya Singh Puar, Advocate Shri Shobhit Shukla, Advocate Shri Raj Kumar Mishra, Advocate Shri SP Dorji, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents :Shri Vishwesh Kumar, Advocate

Shri Shyam Singh, Advocate

Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Siddharth Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Aditya Singh Puar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present. Shri Vishwesh Kumar/Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is not present, however, Legal Representative is present.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit which is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks and is allowed four weeks time to file rejoinder affidavit.

4. List on 14.05.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 140 of 2025

Ex Rect Rohit Yadav

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Satyendra K Tiwari, Advocate

Shri Santosh Singh, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

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

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

4. List on 14.05.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 274 of 2025

MWO Kamal Kumar (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Girish Chandra Tripathi, Advocate

Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Girish Chandra Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Manu Kumar Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that counter affidavit is ready and he will file the same in the Registry during the course of day.

3. Copy of counter affidavit is duly received by the learned counsel for the applicant who seeks and is allowed four weeks time to file rejoinder affidavit.

4. List on 14.05.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 343 of 2025

Ex Nk Vijendra Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri KK Misra, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

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

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

4. List on 14.05.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 358 of 2025

Sub Dinesh Chandra (Retd)

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

Shri Rahul Pal, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he will file rejoinder affidavit in the Registry during the course of day after supplying its copy to learned counsel for the respondents.

3. List for physical final hearing on 18.05.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 359 of2025

Sub Jaswinder Singh Saggu (Retd)

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

Shri Rahul Pal, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Rahul Pal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Shri Rajeev Narayan Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks some more time to file rejoinder affidavit.

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

4. List on 18.05.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 360 of 2025

Nb Sub Sanyasi Naidu Maradana (Retd)

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

Shri Rahul Pal, Advocate Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Rahul Pal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Shri Rajeev Narayan Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks some more time to file rejoinder affidavit.

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

4. List on 18.05.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 480 of 2025 Ex Hav Tej Bahadur Ram

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

Shri Vinod Kumar, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri Vinod Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Pushpendra Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are present through virtual mode.

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

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

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

5. List on 18.05.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 487 of 2025 with MA No. 591 of 2025

Ex Sep Mohammad Ikram

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

Shri RK Singh, Advocate Shri DK Dixit, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri VP Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Shri Rajesh Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

2. Today, this case is fixed for filing of reply to the objection by the learned counsel for the applicant.

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

4. List on 07.01.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 490 of 2025 with MA No. 593 of 2025

Ex Sep Girand Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi, Advocate Shri Anshuman Srivastava, Advocate Shri Raj Kumar Vishwakarma, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

2. There is delay of 39 years, 04 months and 09 days in filing Original Application, as reported by the Registry. Delay condonation application has been filed by the applicant to which objection has been filed by the respondents.

3. Reply to the objection of the respondent, filed by the applicant is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that delay in filing Original Application is not intentional but it is due to reasons given in affidavit annexed with delay condonation application. The delay occurred due to poor financial condition, limited educational background and lack of awareness of the applicant regarding his legal rights and remedies. It is further submitted that after rejection of the disability element of disability pension claim of the applicant, he filed first appeal on 14.09.2024 which has been dismissed by the respondents on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that pension is a recurring cause of action and cause of action arises day by day and month to month vide the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Union of India & Anr vs. Tarsem Singh, decided on 13.08.2008. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that delay in filing the Original Application is neither deliberately nor intentionally and hence, the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to condone the delay in filing the Original Application.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the long delay and submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors (2010), SCC 685 has held that the delay caused in raising the grievances before the appropriate forum ought to be explained very carefully and reasonably so that the court after looking into the entire explanation may condone the delay. In the present case, long delay of more than 39 years has not been properly explained on day to day basis and therefore, delay condonation application in filing the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant for grant of disability element of disability pension @ 30% from the date of discharge from service, i.e. w.e.f. 02.06.1983 but long delay of more than 39 years has not been explained properly and satisfactorily by the applicant.

8. As regards delay, it is settled in law that delay has to be explained on day to day basis. The application is effected by Section 22 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 which deals with limitation in which it is mentioned that court before condoning the delay must be satisfied that applicant has sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. Thus, from the facts of the case itself it is established that delay caused in the filing of Original Application is inordinate and explanation offered for its condonation is insufficient.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited Versus Nahar Exports Limited and Another, reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 680, has held that “the failure of respondents in not showing due diligence in filing of the appeals and the enormous time taken in the refiling can only be construed, in the absence of any valid explanation, as gross negligence and lacks in bona fide as displayed on the part of the respondents.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case has also held that “Stringent scrutiny of appellant’s explanation would be needed to determine sufficiency of cause of appeal”.

10. 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.”

11. In view of the above case laws and the facts and circumstances of the case, delay of more than 39 years in filing of Original Application is not liable to be condoned.

12. Accordingly, delay condonation application is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Original application is also stands dismissed.

13. No order as to costs.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 127 of 2026

Sub Jagbir Singh (Retd)

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

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

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

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

5. List on 19.05.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 129 of 2026

Hav Arvind Kumar (Retd)

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

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

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

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

5. List on 19.05.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

Review Application No. 28 of 2026 with Misc. Application No. 566 of 2026 Inre : Original Application No. 602 of 2017

Lt. Col. (Retd) Brijendra Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing nobody is present on behalf of the applicant. Shri Bipin Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

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

3. The applicant has filed the Review Application along with application for condonation of delay. As per registry, the application is delayed by 04 years, 09 months and 25 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. 28 of 2026 seeks review of the judgment and order dated 18.02.2019 passed in Original Application No. 602 of 2017. Admittedly, the Review Application has been filed beyond the period of 30 days, as such, it is not entertainable. Misc. Application No. 566 of 2026

4. We have gone through the grounds and reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. The applicant has taken grounds that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6820-6824 of 2018, Union of India Vs. Sgt. Girish Kumar and Others, held that the contention of the Union of India that the claim of the arrears of disability pension barred by the limitation cannot be accepted as the same must be allowed from the date it became due, after the knowledge of the aforesaid judgment the applicant submitted representation dated 15.04.2026 and 18.05.2026 with request to release the amount of disability pension for period from July 2012 to November 2014 but of no avail. The applicant has stated that due to the abovementioned reasons the applicant has filed this application. In our considered opinion, no sufficient ground is mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and day to day delay has not been explained. Hence, the application for condonation of delay has no force and it is accordingly dismissed. Review Application No.28 of 2026

5. The Review Application filed by the applicant under Rule 18 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 by which applicant has prayed for review the judgement and order dated 18.02.2019 of this Tribunal passed in Original Application No. 602 of 2017 by which the Original Application was allowed and respondents were directed to grant disability element of disability pension to the applicant @30% for life rounded off to 50% for life w.e.f. three years preceding the date of filing of Original Application. In the Review Application the applicant has taken grounds that in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of in the case of Union of India through its Secretary & Others Vs. Sgt. Girish Kumar & Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 6820- 6824 of 2018 decided on 12.02.2026 the applicant is entitled for the grant of disability element of disability pension from the next date of discharge and it cannot be restricted with effect from three years preceding the date of filing of Original Application.

6. The order of review which has been sought by the applicant was passed by the Bench comprising of [Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J) (since retired) and Hon’ble Air Marshal B.B.P. Sinha, Member (A) (since retired)].

7. It is a settled proposition of law that the scope of the review is limited and until it is shown that there is error apparent on the face of record in the judgment and order sought to be reviewed, the same cannot be reviewed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court often uses the doctrine of prospective overruling. Unless the Hon’ble Apex Court explicitly states that its decision applies retrospectively to past settled cases, the new declaration of law applies only to pending cases and future litigations. Further, under explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court was based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a higher court is not ground for a review of that judgment. In the instant case the order was passed on 18.02.2019 by this Tribunal and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 12.02.2026, hence, it is not applicable in the instant case and on the basis of that Judgment the case cannot be re-opened.

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

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

9. In view of the above clarification given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its order dated 12.10.2026 in the case of Union of India &Ors vs. Sgt Girish Kumar & Ors (supra) wherein it has been held that it cannot be construed to mean that on the basis of said judgment dated 12.02.2026, grant of disability pension with arrears can be claimed in every case and each claim shall be decided on its own merits. The instant Original Application was decided on it’s own merit, therefore, this case cannot be re-opened.

10. 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.”

11. 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."

12. 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”

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

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

SB/AKD/-

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 57 of 2023

Ex Rect Aman Singh

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri R Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Shri Yashpal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

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

3. List for physical hearing on 19.02.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 561 of 2023 Ex AC (U/T) Jai Kant Yadav

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri KP Dutta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ravi Kumar Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present through virtual mode.

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

3. List for physical hearing on 22.02.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 1334 of 2023

Sub (OFC) Munsi Lal Gupta

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

2. On the last occasion, i.e. on 14.07.2026 and today in the revised call, none appeared on behalf of the applicant.

3. The Original Application is dismissed in default due to non prosecution.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 726 of 2024

Col Sanjeev Agnihotri (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Veer Raghav Chaubey, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

2. One more opportunity is given to the learned counsel for the applicant to argue the case. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.

3. List for physical hearing on 23.02.2027.

SB

ORDER SHEET

OA No. 261 of 2025

Ex Hav Dil Narayan Manandhar

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri R Chandra, Advocate

Ms. Supriya Srivastava, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing Shri R Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court. Ms. Kavita Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is not present, however, Legal Representative is present.

2. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned for the day.

3. List for physical hearing on 07.01.2027.

4. If, learned counsel for the respondents fails to appear on the next date fixed, the case shall be decided on the basis of merit.

SB