Form No. 4 {See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET ARMED ...aftlko.up.nic.in/C2 Daily Order/C2 Order 2018/C2 Order...his name be shown as counsel for the respondents when the case is next listed

Form No. 4 {See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO.2

O.A. No. 23 of 2017

Rajendra Pal Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus

Union of India & Others Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents

Notes of the Registry

Orders of the Tribunal

21.03.2018 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal BBP Sinha, Member (A) Judgment pronounced.

Original Application No. 23 of 2017 is partially allowed.

For orders, see our judgment and order of date passed on

separate sheets.

(Air Marshal BBP Sinha) (Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) MH/-


ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Cases of Court No.2 taken in Court No.1

M.A No. 847 of 2018 with M.A. No. 859 of 2018 In re: O.A. No. 221 of 2016

Union of India & Others Applicant-Respondents By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant-Respondents

Versus

Pramod Singh Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant



21.03.2018 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal BBP Sinha, Member (A)

Present: Shri R.C. Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the applicant-

respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

M.A.No 847 of 2018

This is an Application under section 30 (1) of the Armed Forces

Tribunal Act seeing leave to appeal vis-à-vis the order of the Tribunal

dated 31.01.2018.

According to the office report, the Application for leave to Appeal

has been moved after expiry of statutory period, it being barred by 15

days.

It is well settled that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the

delay for want of any enabling provisions in the Armed Forces Tribunal

Act, 2007. Hence the Application for condonation of delay is not

maintainable and is rejected.

M.A.No.859 of 2018

Since Application for condonation of delay has been rejected as

not maintainable being barred by time, in consequence, the Application

for leave to appeal is also rejected.

(Air Marshal BBP Sinha) (Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) MH

Form No. 4

{See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET


M.A No. 2218 of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Lok Kumari Chitaure Rana Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri V.P. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Mrs Amrita Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,

assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Despite time having been granted, reply to objection has

not been filed in terms of earlier order.

Learned counsel for the Applicant prays for further time to

file reply to the objection.

List this case on 07.05.2018 for orders.

In the meanwhile, reply to objection may be filed.




M.A No. 69 of 2018 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017 Smt Prabhawati Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed today in Court by Shri Amit

Jaiswal as counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Let

his name be shown as counsel for the respondents when the

case is next listed.

Present: Shri V.A. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and

Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by

Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Fresh application for condonation of delay has been filed

on behalf of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is

granted four weeks time to file objection to the application for

condonation of delay. Replication if any, may be filed within two

weeks next thereafter.



Form No. 4


ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Cases of Court No.2 taken in Court No.1 O.A No. 526 of 2017

Smt Radha Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: None for the applicant and Shri Ashish Saxena,

Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa,

OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for further time

to file counter affidavit.


In the meanwhile, counter affidavit may be filed.




O.A No. 79 of 2018 with M.A. No. 802 of 2018 Smt Raj Kumari Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Amit Kumar holding brief of Shri B.B. Tripathi, Ld.

Counsel for the applicant and Shri Virendra Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


M.A.No 802 of 2018.

This is an Application seeking substitution of heirs of the

Applicant Smt Raj Kumari who died on 25.01.2018 during pendency

of the O.A.

The Application aforesaid is allowed and the heirs of the

Applicant namely 1/1 Ashok Kumar son of Sri Pratap Singh Chauhan

and ½ Satish Kumar Chauhan son of Sri Pratap Singh both residents

of resident of village Mandak PO Hetalpur District Aligarh U.P. are

ordered to be substituted in the array of the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted

four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any,

may be filed within two weeks next thereafter.



Form No. 4



O.A No. 85 of 2018 Smt Sarita Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Ashok Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the


Counter affidavit in terms of earlier order has not been

filed.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is

granted two weeks’ further time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder

affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks next thereafter.





Anil Kumar Arya Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Lalit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Dr. Gyan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted

by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

In terms of the order dated 15.11.2017 seven days’ time

was allowed to the respondents to carry out amendment in their

counter affidavit. Again, vide order dated 22.02.2018, the learned

counsel for the respondents was directed to carry out the

amendment during the course of the day. Today also, when the

case was taken up, it transpired that the requisite amendment

has not been carried out. It is a sorry state of affairs that the

learned counsel for the respondents has not incorporated the

amendment in compliance of the orders of the Court and today

has prayed for further time to do the needful.

It is a very old case pertaining to the year 2010. Hence we

direct the respondents to carry out the amendment in the counter

affidavit during the course of the day positively.

List this case for hearing on 23.03.2018.


Form No. 4



O.A. No. 77 of 2016

Brig SK Sharma (Retd) Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri S.S. Rajawat, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Sunil Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Learned counsel for the Applicant prays for adjournment of

the case submitting that the case involving similar points as

involved in the instant case is subjudice before the Apex Court.


In the meanwhile, counter affidavit may be filed.



ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW Cases of Court No.2 taken in Court No.1 O.A. No. 159 of 2017

Smt Maha Kali Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri R.K.Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Ms Deepti P. Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


It is informed across the bar that the name of the learned

counsel for the Applicant has been erroneously shown in the list

as Shri K.K.Shrivastava while the applicant is represented by

Shri R.K.Mishra, Advocate.

In view of the above the case is adjourned today and it is

directed that the office shall ensure that correct name of the

learned counsel for the Applicant is printed when the case is next

listed.

List this case on 08.05.2018 for hearing.




O.A. No. 614 of 2017 with M.A. No. 440 of 2018

Smt Poonam Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri R. Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the


Learned counsel for the Applicant prays for further time to

file rejoinder affidavit.


In the meanwhile, rejoinder affidavit may be filed.




M.A No. 826 of 2018 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2018 Ugrasen Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed by Shri Yogesh Kesarwani,

Advocate, on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. His

name be shown in the cause list as counsel for the respondents

when the case is listed.

Present: Shri V.A. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and

Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the respondents.

There is delay of more than one year in filing the present

O.A. Applicant has also filed an application for condonation of

delay in filing the O.A. Learned counsel for the respondents is

granted four weeks time to file objection on delay condonation

application. Applicant shall have two weeks’ time thereafter to file

reply to the objection to be filed by the respondents.

List this case on 23.05.2018 for hearing and orders on

delay condonation application.

(Air Marshal BBP Sinha) (Justice S.V.S. Rathore) Member (A) Member (J) JPT





Versus

Shivanand Pandey Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant




Present: Shri Arun Kumar Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant-respondents.

M.A. No. 724 of 2018

This is an application for condonation of delay under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing application for leave to

appeal. The application has been preferred after lapse of

statutory period. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone the

delay. In view of above, application for condonation of delay in

filing application for leave to appeal is rejected.

M.A. No. 725 of 2018

Since application for condonation of delay has been

rejected, in consequence thereof, application for leave to appeal

is also rejected.






Versus

Gulab Chandra Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant






M.A. No. 726 of 2018







M.A. No. 727 of 2018



is also rejected.






Versus

Durgawati Singh Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant




Present: Shri G.S. Sikarwar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant-

respondents.

M.A. No. 731 of 2018







M.A. No. 732 of 2018



is also rejected.






Versus

Riyasat Ali Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant




Present: Mrs Anju Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant-

respondents.

M.A. No. 741 of 2018







M.A. No. 742 of 2018



is also rejected.






Versus

Kamta Prasad Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant




Present: Dr. Chet Narayan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


M.A. No. 746 of 2018







M.A. No. 747 of 2018



is also rejected.





Ramesh Chandra Dixit Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Applicant in person and Dr. Shailendra Sharma

Atal, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 808 of 2018 with M.A. No. 809 of 2018

This is an application for recall of the order dated

04.01.2018, filed after a delay of 24 days, accompanied with an

application for condonation of delay. Respondents are directed

to file objection, if any, by the next date fixed.

List this case for orders on 13.04.2018.




Smt Madhubala Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus




Present: Shri Diwakar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Sunil Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,

assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

In order to arrive at an appropriate decision in this case, it

is necessary to bring on record the details of the payment made

to the applicant in different heads. Accordingly, learned counsel

for the respondents is directed to file details of the payment

made to the applicant in different heads including DLI.

Additionally a copy of the P.P.O. issued to the legal wife is also

to be enclosed. It is further directed that the respondents shall

also explain the normal time taken for various payments after

death in service vis-a-vis the delay in making these payments to

the applicant.


Let copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for

the parties on payment of usual charges today itself.




M.A No. 810 of 2018 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2018

Smt Mina Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus




19.03.2018 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal BBP Sinha, Member (A) Memo of appearance filed by Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal,




Present: Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the


There is delay of more than 11 years in filing the present

O.A. Learned counsel for the respondents is granted four weeks

time to file objection on delay condonation application. Applicant

shall have two weeks’ time thereafter to file reply to the objection

to be filed by the respondents.






Ex-A No. 50 of 2018 In re: O.A No. 443 of 2017

Nitin Kumar Sharma Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed by Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal,




Present: Shri K.K. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the


This is an application for execution of the order dated

13.10.2017, whereby a direction was given to the respondents to

decide the representation of the applicant. Learned counsel for

the respondents prays for time to seek instructions in the matter.






Smt Shiv Kumari Pandey Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Adjournment is prayed on behalf of the respondents to file

objection on application for condonation of delay.

List this case on 26.04.2018 for hearing on application for

condonation of delay.




M.A No. 789 of 2018 with M.A. No. 790 of 2018

In re: O.A. No. 221 of 2017 Union of India & Others Applicant-Respondents By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant-Respondents

Versus

Lt Col Om Prakash Singh (Retd) Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant




Present: Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant-respondents, assisted by Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal

Cell.

M.A. No. 789 of 2018







M.A. No. 790 of 2018



is also rejected.





In re: T.A. No. 1402 of 2010 Union of India & Others Petitioner-Respondents By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner-Respondents

Versus

Anurag Singh Respondent-Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Petitioner




Present: Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner-


M.A. No. 804 of 2018







M.A. No. 805 of 2018



is also rejected.





Kumari Dilmaya Somai Magar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Ved Prakash Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the


Learned counsel for the applicant prays for short

adjournment to file reply to the objection filed by the respondents

to the delay condonation application.

List this case on 23.04.2018 for hearing on delay

condonation application.




M.A No. 457 of 2018 with M.A. No. 458 of 2018 In re: D.Y. No. 1569 of 2017

Durga Singh Panchpal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Vinay Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Last opportunity is granted to the respondents to file

objection on the application for condonation of delay.

List this case on 20.04.2018 for hearing on delay

condonation application.




O.A No. 104 of 2016 with M.A. No. 476 of 2018 Smt Pankaj Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus Union of India & Others Respondents By Legal Practitioner for Respondents




Memo of appearance filed by Shri D.C. Lohumi, Advocate,

on behalf of the respondent no.7 is taken on record. His name be

shown in the cause list as counsel for the respondent no. 7 when

the case is listed.

Present: Shri S.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant,

Shri Sunil Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by

Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell and Shri D.C. Lohumi, Advocate

for the respondent no.7.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to provide

copy of the O.A. alongwith its Annexures to Shri D.C. Lohumi,

learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent no.7.

Application bearing M.A. No. 476 of 2018 moved by the

applicant for extension of time dated 19.02.2018 is allowed.

Application dated 07.02.2018 moved on behalf of the

applicant through Ms Nisha Pandey, Advocate for permission to

have the file for making impleadment is misconceived and is

rejected accordingly.





O.A. No. 45 of 2017

Smt Nisha Tomar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri R.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the

applicant and Ms Soma Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the


Learned counsel for the applicant prays for further time to

file rejoinder affidavit.





O.A. No. 81 of 2017 with M.A. No. 149 of 2018

Mohd Akhtar Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






and Shri D.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


On the last date learned counsel for the application had

prayed for time to file supplementary rejoinder affidavit. Today he

submits that he does not intend to file any supplementary

rejoinder affidavit and the matter be listed for hearing.





O.A. No. 86 of 2018

A K Das Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Shiv Kant Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the



Learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to file

counter affidavit. He is permitted to bring on record the policy

pertaining to the controversy involved in the present case.





T.A No. 41 of 2016

Smt Shakuntal Devi Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Shri Pranat Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

and Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he shall

file counter affidavit during the course of day in the Registry and

has provided copy of the same to the learned counsel for the

applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to file

rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit to be filed by the

respondents as aforesaid.





O.A. No. 252 of 2014

Md Samsul Haque Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri S.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant

and Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,

assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for adjournment to

take steps to amend the prayer clause of the O.A.





O.A No. 335 of 2017

Tomy Barghese Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Upendra Prasad, Advocate, holding brief of

Shri Birendra Prasad Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and

Shri Ashish Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted

by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

Adjournment is prayed on behalf of the applicant on the

ground of non availability of counsel for the applicant.





T.A No. 40 of 2009

Sushil Singh Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Ms Appoli Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the


Applicant, who is present in person submits that his

counsel Shri V.A. Singh, Advocate is not available today, hence

prays for adjournment.

Since the matter is old, therefore, this case shall be listed

on 16.04.2018 for hearing with the condition that no further

adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties.





Puran Chandra Joshi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus




16.03.2018 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal BBP Sinha, Member (A) Memo of appearance filed by Shri R.C. Shukla, Advocate

on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. His name be

shown in the cause list as counsel for the respondents when the

case is listed.

Present: Shri Parijaat Belaura, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri R.C. Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


There is delay of more than six years in filing the present

O.A. Learned counsel for the respondents is granted four weeks

time to file objection on delay condonation application. Applicant

shall have two weeks’ time thereafter to file reply to the objection

to be filed by the respondents.






Ex-A No. 48 of 2018 In re: O.A No. 290 of 2016

Harendra Vikram Singh Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus




16.03.2018 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.S. Rathore, Member (J) Hon’ble Air Marshal BBP Sinha, Member (A) Memo of appearance filed by Shri V.P.S. Vats, Advocate

on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. His name be

shown in the cause list as counsel for the respondents when the

case is listed.

Present: Mrs. Kavita Belaura, Advocate holding brief of

Shri Yash Pal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri

V.P.S. Vats, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Maj

Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

This is an application for execution of the order dated

18.01.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that by

the order under execution a direction was given to the

respondents to reinstate applicant’s service forthwith. However,

that part of the order has not been complied with. Learned

counsel for the respondents prays for time to seek instructions

as to why said part of the order has not yet been complied with.







Versus

Chandra Pati Yadav Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant




Present: Dr. S.N. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant-


M.A. No. 748 of 2018







M.A. No. 749 of 2018



is also rejected.






Versus

Awadh Bihari Murotiya Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant






M.A. No. 752 of 2018







M.A. No. 753 of 2018



is also rejected.






Versus

Vir Bahadur Singh Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant






M.A. No. 754 of 2018







M.A. No. 755 of 2018



is also rejected.





Chief of Army Staff & Others Applicant-Respondents By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant-Respondents

Versus

Vijai Shankar Yadav Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant




Present: Shri G.S. Sikarwar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant-


M.A. No. 759 of 2018







M.A. No. 760 of 2018



is also rejected.






Versus

Narain Singh Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant






Cell.

M.A. No. 761 of 2018







M.A. No. 762 of 2018



is also rejected.




M.A. No. 772 of 2018 with M.A. No. 773 of 2018

In re: O.A No. 235 of 2017

Jagdish Prasad Mishra Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Memo of appearance filed by Shri A.K. Sahu, Advocate on

behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

Present: Shri Vijayendra Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri A.K. Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


M.A. No. 772 of 2018







M.A. No. 773 of 2018



is also rejected.






Versus

Prem Singh Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant




Present: Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the


Cell.

M.A. No. 781 of 2018







M.A. No. 782 of 2018



is also rejected.






Versus

Basawan Singh Respondent-Applicant By Legal Practitioner for Respondent-Applicant




Present: Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


Cell.

M.A. No. 783 of 2018







M.A. No. 784 of 2018



is also rejected.




O.A No. 77 of 2018

Smt Nirmal Nagpaul W/o Late Lt Col Vijay Nagpaul Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Col (Retd) Y.R. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the



Ten days’ time as prayed is granted to the learned counsel

for the respondents to file objection on the point of maintainability

of present O.A.





Ex-A No. 10 of 2018 In re: T.A No. 41 of 2012

Smt Indra Kumari Gurung Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the


In this case learned counsel for the applicant Shri P.N.

Chaturvedi, Advocate has expired. Let a notice be issued to the

applicant to make an alternative arrangement.

It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that requisite

sanction has been granted by the competent authority and the

PPO shall be issued within a short period.





M.A No. 1384 of 2016 In re: O.A No. Nil of 2016

Smt Laxmi Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the


In this case learned counsel for the applicant Shri P.N.

Chaturvedi, Advocate has expired. Let a notice be issued to the

applicant to make an alternative arrangement.





M.A No. 2121 of 2017 In re: O.A No. Nil of 2017

Smt Jamwanti Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Mayankar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the


Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he shall file

reply to the objection filed by the respondents to delay

condonation application in the Registry during the course of the

day.

List this case for hearing on application for condonation of

delay on 03.05.2018.




M.A No. 2348 of 2017 In re: O.A No. 219 of 2014

Chandrabhan Singh & Another Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Pankaj Singh Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the

applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the


Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due

to inadvertence a legal infirmity has occurred in the application

for recall and the same may be dismissed as not pressed with

liberty to file a fresh application.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn with

liberty aforesaid.




O.A No. 505 of 2017

Smt Jayanti Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri KKS Bisht, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and

Dr. Gyan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted by

Maj Salen Xaxa, OIC Legal Cell.

Further adjournment is prayed on behalf of the applicant to

file reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents.





O.A No. 513 of 2017

Smt Dharmsheela Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






Shri Virendra Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, assisted


Adjournment is prayed on behalf of the applicant to file

rejoinder affidavit.





T.A No. 27 of 2017 with M.A. No 2220 of 2017

Sandeep Kumar Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Shri Anoop Chandra Srivastav, Ld. Counsel for

the petitioner and Shri Amit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents, assisted by Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, OIC Legal Cell.

Learned counsel for the respondents has raised objection

that by means of writ petition the petitioner has made prayer for

compassionate appointment but the father of the petitioner was

working as a civil cook in the Air Force and during aforesaid

service he expired.

Prima facie the services of the father of the applicant are

not covered by the Air Force Act and , therefore, the relief

prayed by the applicant cannot be granted by this Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition

may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the

appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.

Accordingly, this T.A. is hereby dismissed with liberty

aforesaid.




O.A No. 266 of 2011

Chand Pati Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Dharmesh Sinha, Ld. Counsel for the



In pursuance of the order dated 13.02.2018, learned

counsel for the applicant submits that he shall file required

affidavit during the course of day in the Registry. However,

learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submits that he could

not receive the documents and prays for time to file affidavit.





O.A No. 251 of 2016

Smt Kanta Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus






Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,


Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

applicant’s husband had preferred O.A. before the Principal

Bench and obtained the order but subsequently instead of going

to Principal Bench to file execution application, the present O.A.

has been filed concealing the fact of earlier O.A. He prays for

time to bring on record the said fact by filing copy of the order

passed in the said O.A. alongwith documents annexed therewith.


Let a copy of this order be provided to the learned counsel

for the respondents on payment of usual charges today itself.




O.A No. 247 of 2015 with M.A. No. 2260 of 2017

Meera Devi Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Yashpal Singh, Advocate holding brief of

Shri Sharad Nandan Ojha, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Shri

Amit Jaiswal, Ld.Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Lt Cdr

Chinmay Sharma, OIC Legal Cell.







O.A No. 622 of 2017

Prithvi Pal Applicant By Legal Practitioner for the Applicant

Versus





Present: Shri Shyam Singh, Ld. Counsel for the


None is present on behalf of the applicant.

In the interest of justice hearing is adjourned.





T.A No. 06 of 2016

Uma Shanker Bhartiya Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Shri R. Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

and Shri Anurag Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents,








T.A No. 70 of 2012

Smt Omvati Devi Petitioner By Legal Practitioner for the Petitioner

Versus





Present: Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, Ld. Counsel for the

respondents, assisted by Lt Cdr Chinmay Sharma, OIC Legal

Cell.

None is present on behalf of the petitioner.

In the interest of justice hearing is adjourned.



Documents

Form No. 4 {See rule 11(1)} ORDER SHEET ARMED ...aftlko.up.nic.in/C2 Daily Order/C2 Order 2018/C2 Order...his name be shown as counsel for the respondents when the case is next listed