Daily order sheet, C2, 03 Nov 2026 on 3 November 2026

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is physically present and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is virtually present.

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

3. Today, this O.A. has been listed for admission. On perusal of record, it transpires that earlier this case was listed as Dy. No. and now the case has been allotted Original Number 915 of 2026 since the defects raised by the Registry have been removed.

4. There has been delay for more than 35 years, 03 months and 29 days in filing this Original Application. Delay Condonation Application has been filed by the applicant. Ld. Counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks time to file Objection against delay condonation application.

5. Dr. Shailendra Shrma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that on last date of listing he has filed Memo of Appearance but his name is not mentioned in today’s Cause List. Therefore, Registry is hereby directed to show his name as counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

6. Rpm/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Supl. No. 2)

EX-A. No.327 of 2026 Inre O.A. No. 228 of 2026

Ex Hav Tarsem Singh

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

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

2. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Ashok Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri GS Sikarwar, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are virtually present.

3. This fresh Execution Application has been filed by the applicant for non- implementation of order dated 30.03.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 228 of 2026.

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents directed to seek instructions and to file compliance affidavit by next date fixed.

5. Rpm/-

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

EX-A. No. 495 of 2024 Inre O.A. No. 1270 of 2023

Ex Sub Dharam Nath Tewary (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta, Ld. counsel for the respondents is not present, however Legal Representative for the respondents present in Court.

2. Legal representative submits that the Notional Increment has already been granted to the applicant from the date of retirement. She, therefore, seeks and allowed two weeks time to file compliance affidavit.

3. Rpm/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No. 2)

EX-A No. 238 of 2025 Inre O.A. No. 776 of 2022

Poonam Choudhary W/o Late Lt Col Abhinav Choudhary Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Abhinav Bhattacharya, 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 Pramod Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Abhinav Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are physically present.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that Corrigendum PPO has been issued and entire payments have been paid to the applicant alongwith arrears due for the Special Family Pension.

3. Since no grievance is pending in respect of the applicant, this execution application is disposed off with full and final satisfaction.

Rpm/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No. 3)

EX-A. No. 439 of 2025 Inre O.A. No. 644 of 2023

Ex Sgt CM Tiwari

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

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Mahendra Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri JN Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are physically 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 Department has decided to prefer Writ Petition before the High Court against order of this Tribunal, shortly.

5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that even after laps of more than one and half year of the order of this Bench, neither the writ petition nor the compliance affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

6. In this circumstances, there is no other option except to call the responsible officer i.e. PD DAV shall appear before the Tribunal, virtually, on next date of hearing to explain the reason as to why the order of this Tribunal dated 21.05.2025 passed in O.A. No. 644 of 2023 has not yet been complied with and in the meantime, if the order of the Tribunal complied with then there is no need to appear, virtually, on next date of listing failing which cost Rs. 10,000/- shall be imposed.

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

8. (Maj Gen Sanjay Singh) (Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma) Member (A) Member (J) Rpm/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No.2 (Sl. No. 4)

O.A No. 916 of 2025

Ex JWO Syed Mahfooz Ahmad Kazmi

Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi and

Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, Advocates

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is physically present and Dr. Gyan Singh, Ld. counsel for the respondents is virtually present.

2. Legible copies of the documents filed on behalf of the applicant, copy duly served upon Ld. Counsel for the respondents, are taken on record.

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks and allowed two weeks further time as last opportunity to file counter affidavit.

4. Rpm/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No. 5)

O.A. No. 959 of 2025 with M.A. No. 27 of 2026

Sub (Hony Lt) Mukesh Kumar (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : HFO Ramesh Chandra Shukla(Retd) and

Shri Mahendra Kumar Singh, Advocates

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, Wg Cdr SN Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of HFO Ramesh Chandra Shukla(Retd), Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. Counsel for the respondents are physically present.

2. Objection against amendment application has not been filed so far.

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that objection against amendment application has been sent for vetting and the same will be filed, shortly. He, therefore, seeks some more time to file objection against amendment application.

4. As prayed, time is allowed to file objection against amendment application by next date fixed.

5. Rpm/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No. 6)

O.A. No. 1033 of 2025

Smt Mula Devi, w/o Late Ex, Sepoy Ram Prakash Dixit Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Ashok Kumar, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Ashok Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through video conferencing and Mrs. Anju Singh, Ld. counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

2. Ld. Counsel for respondents seeks some more time to file short Rejoinder Reply. Time as prayed is granted.

3. Member (A) Member (J) HLS/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No. 7)

O.A. No. 1093 of 2025

Ex CFN Kuldep Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Parijaat Belaura, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, none present for the applicant either physically or through virtual mode. Shri Gyan Singh, Ld. counsel for the respondents is present through video conferencing.

2. Today, this case was listed for filing of Rejoinder Reply but counsel for applicant is not present. Last opportunity is granted to the ld. Counsel for applicant filing Rejoinder Reply and if the rejoinder reply is not filed by the next date, opportunity will be closed and matter shall be listed for final hearing.

3. Member (A) Member (J) HLS/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No.8)

O.A. No. 434 of 2026

Smt Shilpa W/o Shri Bahadur

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant :Shri Vivek Mishra, Shri Anurag Srivastava Kaalesh,

Advocates

Versus Union of India &Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents: Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Advocate Notes of the Registry

Hon’ble Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta, Member (J) Hon’bleMaj Gen Sanjay Singh, Member (A)

1. On the case being taken up for hearing in the revised call, none appears on behalf of the applicant. Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. counsel for the respondents is present.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file Objection on maintainability of the O.A. as well as on delay condonation application. Time as prayed for is allowed.

3. Member (A) Member (J) Rpm/-Girish/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No.2 (Sl. No.9)

O.A. No. 777 of 2026 with M.A. No. 945 of 2026

Smt Asha Widow Late Cpl Anand Singh

Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant :Shri GC Tripathi, Shri Indra Mani Tripathi, Shri

Krishan Kumar Singh and Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra,

Advocates

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents :Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Krishan Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Objection filed on behalf of the respondents on delay condonation application and also on maintainability of the O.A., is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file Reply. Time as prayed for is allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that his name has wrongly been shown in the cause list as Ashish Kumar Singh instead of Asheesh Kumar Agnihotri. Registry is directed to be careful in future in showing the name of learned counsel for respective parties. Registry is further directed to show the name of Sri Asheesh Kumar Agnihotri as counsel for the respondents in the future cause list in place of Sri Ashish Kumar Singh.

3. Rpm/- Girish/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No.2 (Sl. No. 10)

O.A. No. 781 of 2026 with M.A. No. 949 of 2026

Ex L/Nk Shaik Muhammad Khasim (through Son Shaikh Abdul Kadir) Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey and Shri Manoj Kumar

Awasthi, Advocates

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey and Sri Manoj Kumar Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Anju Singh, Ld. counsel for the respondents, all are present before the court.

2. Ld. Counsel for respondents filed objection on delay condonation application which is taken on record.

3. Ld. Counsel for applicant seeks time to file reply to the objection filed by the ld. Counsel for respondents on delay condonation application.

4. Member (A) Member (J) HLS/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No. 11)

O.A. No. 815 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1000 of 2026

Capt Satish Chander Lal (Retd)

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Lt Col Gurprakash Singh Virk, Shri Manoj Kumar

Awasthi and Shri Umesh Chandra Bajpai, Advocates

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 Manoj Kumar Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, both are present before the court.

2. Ld. Counsel for respondents filed objection against delay condonation application which is taken on record.

3. Ld. Counsel for applicant seeks time to file reply to the objection filed by the ld. Counsel for respondents against delay condonation application.

4. HLS/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No. 12)

O.A. No. 851 of 2026

Nk Santosh Kumar Through Father Sri Ram Pratap Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Virat Anand Singh, Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh

and Ms. Pallavi Borgohain, Advocates

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents: Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, none present for the applicant either physically or virtually. Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is present before the court.

2. Ld. Counsel for respondents seeks time to file objection against the prayed for interim relief as well as on maintainability of the O.A. Time as prayed is granted.

3. HLS/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No.2 (Sl. No. 13)

O.A. No. 891 of 2026 with M.A. No. 1097 of 2026

Mamta Bhardwaj w/o Late Sub/PAD Anil Kumar

Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri Narayan Dutt Mishra, Shri Amit Kumar Shukla,

Shri Madan Kumar Swarnkar and Shri Sawaliya

Dwivedi, Advocates

Versus Union of India & Others

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

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Narayan Dutt Mishra,Shri Madan Kumar Swarnkar and Sawaliya Dwivedi Ld. Counsel for the applicant are present before the court and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. counsel for the respondents is present through video conferencing.

2. In pursuance of the order dated 15.9.2026, respondent No. 5 Ram Naresh Rajbhar son of Jaggu appeared before the court physically and submitted that he has no means to appoint any counsel to defend his case. In the interest of justice, Sri Umesh Chandra Bajpai, Advocate be appointed as Amicus Curiae to defend the case of respondent No. 5 and he is directed to file affidavit.

3. Ld. Counsel for respondents is directed to file counter affidavit and respondent No. 5 is also directed to file counter affidavit.

4. Member (A) Member (J) HLS/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No. 14)

O.A.(A). No. 301 of 2025 with M.A. No. 369 of 2025 and M.A. No. 370 of 2025

Ex Sgt AP Karthik through Pairokar P. Krishnaveni (Sister) Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant : Shri M Gurusamy, Shri P. Krishnaveni, Shri K.

Anbuselvan, Shri Rahul Dev Tripathi and Shri K

Nandhini, Advocates

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, Mrs. P. Krishnaveni, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present before the court and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. counsel for the respondents is present through video conferencing. Today, applicant is also present before the court .

2. Today, this case is listed for filing of counter affidavit but ld. Counsel for respondents seeks further time for filing counter affidavit. Time as prayed is granted. If the counter affidavit is not filed by the next date, the opportunity for filing counter affidavit will be closed and the matter shall be listed for hearing.

3. Legal representative is present physically and she is directed to produce original document relating to this case for perusal of the bench

4. HLS/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No. 15)

O.A.(A). No. 48 of 2026with M.A. No. 1316 of 2026

Sub (Nur Tech) Rabendra Kumar Tiwari

Applicant Legal Practitioner for the Applicant :Shri Virat Anand Singh, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents: Shri Kaushik Chatterjee, Advocate Notes of the Registry

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Rahul Pal and Sri Keshav Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri Kaushik Chatterjee, Ld. counsel for the respondents are present.

2. In the previous order dated 16.10.2026, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he moved amendment application through MA No. 1128/2026, which was allowed, but the same could not be carried out within the stipulated period of time. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he may be given some more time to carry out the amendment. Since the amendment has already been allowed and as such applicant is directed to carry out the amendment as already allowed during the course of the day and amended copy of the O.A. be provided to the respondents’ counsel.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on bail application no. 1316 of 2026

4. This application has been moved on behalf of the appellant under Section 15 (6) (d) (e) to (f) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 read with Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of the sentence passed by General Court Martial (GCM) vide order dated 17.12.2025 and enlarging the appellant on bail.

5. Submission of Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that during the GCM proceedings the appellant had pleaded not guilty and the action of the respondents did not find support to comprehend that the whole case of the prosecution is based on conjectures and surmise where the respondents have failed to establish the charges levelled against the appellant. On the strength of that, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that due to infirmities in the GCM proceedings, a prima-facie, case has been made out in favour of the appellant. He further submitted that since the appellant has undergone half of the sentence awarded to him, he deserves to be granted bail keeping in view of the following case laws:-

(i) Sanjay Chandra vs Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40.

(ii) Babu Singh vs State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579.

(iii) State of Rajasthan vs Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 244.

(iv) AFT, Lucknow order dated 24.11.2023 passed in M.A. No. 5001/2023, LAC Subhashis Ghosh vs Union of India & Ors.

6. Vide order dated 16.10.2026, time was granted to the respondents to file objection on bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, but no objection has been filed till date. However, Ld. Counsel for the respondents orally objected that since the appellant has not served half of the sentence awarded by the GCM, bail application deserves to be rejected at the very threshold.

7. The undisputed facts between the parties are that a charge-sheet against the appellant was framed on 23.05.2025 and he was tried by General Court Martial (GCM), which sentenced the appellant to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service vide order dated 17.12.2025. Prior to GCM, he was put in close arrest w.e.f. 09.07.2025 and after confirmation of sentence, he was sent to District Jail, Agra for serving out the sentence granted by the learned GCM.

8. In bail application it is stated on behalf of the appellant that the appellant shall abide by the terms and conditions of the bail as may be imposed upon him after grant of bail by this Tribunal and that he shall not abuse the liberty so granted. It is also stated in the bail application that the appellant shall not hinder in any of the pending proceedings after grant of bail.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the appellant is about to complete half of the sentence awarded by the GCM, we are of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

10. In view of above, the application for bail is allowed and the execution of sentence is hereby suspended. Appellant shall be released on bail forthwith on furnishing of his personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of this Tribunal. On furnishing surety, as stated hereinabove, Deputy Registrar shall then issue the release order, which in turn will be conveyed to the concerned Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Agra, wherein the appellant is presently confined and serving out his sentence. The appellant after release on bail shall attend this Tribunal on each and every date of hearing. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. He shall surrender his passport (if any) and shall not leave the country without prior permission of this Tribunal where his case is pending. In case any complaint with regard to his conduct during the period of bail is received, the respondents will be free to move an application for cancellation of the bail granted by this Tribunal.

11. After release of the appellant, the bail bonds furnished for his release shall be kept on record of this Original Application (A).

12. M.A. No 1316 of 2026 stands disposed of accordingly.

13. Let the respondents may file Counter Affidavit within a period of four weeks and RA, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

14. List on 15.03.2027.

Rpm/- Girish/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No.16)

O.A. No. 448 of 2024

Ex NkVirpal Singh

Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant :Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi and

Shri Shiva Dwivedi, Advocates

Versus Union of India & Others

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

Hon’ble Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta, Member (J) Hon’bleMaj Gen Sanjay Singh, Member (A)

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Manoj Kumar Awasthi, the applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. For reasons to be recorded separately, the O.A. is dismissed.

4. Judgment on the separate sheets of paper.

5. Pending MA(s), if any, shall be treated to have been disposed of.

Member (A) Member (J) Rpm/- Girish/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No.17)

T.A. No. 82 of 2012

Mahavir Singh Rawat

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

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents: Shri RKS Chauhan, Advocate Notes of the Registry

Hon’ble Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta, Member (J) Hon’bleMaj Gen Sanjay Singh, Member (A)

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri KK Misra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Shri RKS Chauhan, Ld. counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Due to paucity of time, the case is adjourned for the day.

3. Member (A) Member (J) Rpm/- Girish/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Court No.2 (Sl. No. 18)

T.A. No. 59 of 2022 with M.A. No. 640 of 2026

SmtSadhna Devi W/o Late Arbeshanker Rajdhari Yadav Petitioner

By Legal Practitioner for the Petitiohner: Shri Sudeshwar Maurya, Shri DP Singh,

Shri Abhishek Yadav, Shri ShivendraPratap Singh

and Shri Yashpal Singh, Advocates

Versus Union of India & Others

Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents : Shri Somesh Singh, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh

and Shri Chandra Sewak, Advocates Notes of the Registry

Hon’ble Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta, Member (J) Hon’bleMaj Gen Sanjay Singh, Member (A

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Sudeshwar Maurya, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 5 are present. None presents on behalf of UOI. However, departmental representative present on behalf of respondents.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Judgement is reserved.

Member (A) Member (J) Rpm/- Girish/-

ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 2(Sl. No.19)

T.A. No. 30 of 2024

Ex NkGaonkarBasuBabu

Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner :Shri Rang Nath Pandey, Shri Rahul Pandey

and Shri Shashi Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate

Versus Union of India & Others

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

Hon’ble Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta, Member (J) Hon’bleMaj Gen Sanjay Singh, Member (A)

1. On the case being taken up for hearing, Shri Rang Nath Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, Ld. counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Judgment is reserved.

(Maj Gen Sanjay Singh) (Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta)

Member (A) Member (J) Rpm/- Girish/-