Armed Forces Tribunal
Gajanand vs Union of India on 12 November 2026
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH CHANDIGARH
AT CHANDIMANDIR
-.-
MA 986 of 2026 in MA (E) 306 of 2024 in OA 2523 of 2013
Thursday, the 12th day of Nov, 2026
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE LT GEN (DR) RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER (A)
Gajanand
…… Applicant
(By Arvind Kumar Yadav, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India and others
…… Respondents
(By Rajni Narula, Sr PC, JS Lalli, DSGI, through VC, Mr. Pravin Agarwal, Joint Secretary, DESW, through VC and Brig Anupam Chaure, Office of JAG (Lit), through VC)
-.-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
A photocopy of a memo dated 05.11.2026 has been handed over in Court with the submission that the order under execution has been implemented. Conditional Government Sanction has been issued and that instructions have been received to say that the pensionary documents shall be processed today itself and further communicated to the PCDA (P) Prayagraj.
Vide order dated 13.08.2026, we had directed issuance of notice to Smt. Sukriti Likhi, IAS, Secretary, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) to show cause why coercive steps be not adopted for implementation of the order under execution. Order under execution is dated 06.03.2020. The applicant has been granted disability pension for his second spell of service in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) along with benefit of rounding off. Arrears have, however, been confined to three years before the date of filing of the Original Application, which was 15.05.2013. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has now confirmed that a soldier is entitled to grant of disability pension during second spell of service in the DSC.
MA 986 of 2026 in MA (E) 306 of 2024 in OA 2523 of 2013 -2- The order referred to hereinabove was challenged before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court along with a bunch of other cases. The entire bunch was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2025. However, order under execution was not implemented because the Union of India obtained an opinion from the JAG (Lit) that the order of the High Court should be challenged by way of SLP.
Noticing that no policy decision was involved and that cases where no policy decision was involved must be implemented by the Service Headquarter itself as quickly as possible, the opinion obtained from JAG (Lit) was frowned upon while passing order dated 22.10.2026. Thus, the affidavit filed on behalf of Secretary, DESW was rejected and the Secretary was directed to be present in person through video conferencing to give an explanation for non-implementation.
Despite specific order, Smt. Sukriti Likhi, IAS, Secretary, DESW has not appeared through video conferencing. Instead, a copy of memo dated 05.11.2026 was handed over.
As absence of Smt. Sukriti Likhi, was a direct violation of order dated 22.10.2026, we passed over the matter and directed the learned counsel for the respondents to ensure the presence of Smt. Sukriti Likhi, by 11:00 am. The case was taken up again at 11:00 am, when Shri. Pravin Agarwal, Joint Secretary, DESW has put in appearance and has stated that Smt. Sukriti Likhi is busy in a meeting called by the Department of Expenditure and is unable to be present in person. However, the order under execution having been implemented, the absence may be condoned. Smt. Sukriti Likhi, did not intend to violate the order dated 22.10.2026.
MA 986 of 2026 in MA (E) 306 of 2024 in OA 2523 of 2013 -3- A reference to the entire sequence of events narrated hereinabove clearly shows the intention of Smt. Sukriti Likhi. She presumed that the order for personal presence could be avoided by ensuring that Government Sanction was issued. Thus, the submission of Shri. Pravin Agarwal that she did not intend to violate Court orders cannot be accepted.
Violation of orders passed to ensure that orders of the Tribunal are implemented is contempt as held by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in WP (C) No.12769 of 2024 Union of India Vs. Lt Col Mukul Dev decided on 23.02.2026. We, thus, direct that the case be taken up tomorrow at 10:30 am. Smt. Sukriti Likhi is directed to be present in person through video conferencing to explain her conduct and any affidavit or application for exemption from appearance shall not be accepted.
Adjourned to 13.11.2026.
To be taken up at 10:30 am.
A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the respondents on behalf of usual charges.
(Lt Gen (Dr) Ranbir Singh)
(Justice Sudhir Mittal) Member (A)
Member (J)
12th Nov, 2026 AKB