AFT Judgments, Supreme Court of India

Important Judgments: AFT Judgments, Supreme Court of India

Judge : PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE,PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
unbecoming of an officer and the character expected of his position – Upon conclusion of trial by General Court Martial and two of the three charges proven, he was dismissed from service – Armed Forces Tribunal upheld the findings of guilt – However, the High Court allowed the writ Punjab & Haryana in CWP No. 20380 of 2012. Under the said order, the High Court has set-aside the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Chandigarh,1 which has dismissed the appeal of the respondent and upheld the findings and sentence awarded by the General Court Martial.2 2. The respondent
Decision Date : 09-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2459/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,DIPANKAR DATTA
Armed Forces Tribunal , which rejected the Appellant’s prayer for a reference of his diagnosis of AIDS, to a fresh Medical Board. The matter arose out of the Appellant’s discharge from service from the Indian Army under Rule 13(3), Item III (iii) of the Army Rules, 1954 on the ground that he was permitted to withdraw his appeal, and avail statutory remedies. Accordingly, the Appellant approached the Armed Forces Tribunal , which passed the Impugned Order. Headnotes Service Law – Armed Forces – Discharge from service on the ground of the Appellant suffering from AIDS – Application
Decision Date : 20-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1666/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HIMA KOHLI
in the Judge Advocate Generals’ Branch of the Indian Navy – Petitioner was considered for permanent commission but denied on the ground that there were no vacancies – Petitioner moved this Court u/Art. 32 of the Constitution, but was relegated to the Armed Forces Tribunal – Directions of Nagaraja [2020] 10 SCR 433 : (2020) 13 SCC 1 – relied on. List of Acts Constitution of India. List of Keywords Permanent Commission; Short Service Commission Officers; Indian Navy; Judge Advocate Generals’ Branch; Vacancies; Armed Forces Tribunal ; Review petition; Binding judgment; Selection
Decision Date : 26-02-2024 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)/1036/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI,PANKAJ MITHAL
[1978] 2 SCR 272 : (1978) 1 SCC 405 – referred to. Ex Sig. Man Kanhaiya Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., [2018] 1 SCR 679 : (2018) 14 SCC 279; S. Muthu Kumaran vs. Union of India and Ors., [2017] 1 SCR 550 : (2017) 4 SCC 609 – held inapplicable. List of Acts Armed Forces Tribunal Act, Nos.644-645 of 2017 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2014 in O.A. No.159 of 2013/05.06.2014 in M.A. No.247 of 2014 in O.A. No.159 of 2013 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Kochi, Circuit Bench at Para Regimental Training Centre, Bangalore and order dated 18.11.2015 in M.A.
Decision Date : 09-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/644/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : ABHAY S. OKA,SANJAY KAROL
16 S.C.R. 1026 : 2023 INSC 1074 1026 CASE DETAILS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. AIR COMMODORE NK SHARMA (17038) ADM/LGL (Civil Appeal No. 14524 of 2015) DECEMBER 14, 2023 [ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal such time that the policy is framed by the Government and be given an opportunity for consideration by the promotion board constituted under such new policy. Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Impugned order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal directing
Decision Date : 14-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/14524/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : S. RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA
the principles to be applied for deciding disability. 46. In Pani Ram vs. Union of India38, this court, while upsetting a decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal rejecting a claim for disability pension, for an army personnel, held, inter alia, on a reading of the Army Pension
Decision Date : 26-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7175/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : ABHAY S. OKA,SANJAY KAROL
Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court transferred the matter to the Armed Forces Tribunal , Chandigarh. By the impugned judgment, the Armed Forces Tribunal , Chandigarh dismissed the Petition and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Against the impugned order of the the Appellant again filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and by order dated 10.10.2018, the High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition granted liberty to the appellant to avail remedy under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 2. On
Decision Date : 27-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1791/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,M.M. SUNDRESH
DRAT can be directed to be considered by other Tribunals like Central Administrative Tribunal, Armed Forces Tribunal and Industrial Tribunal within the State. With a view to resolve the problem being faced by the parties, for the time being and purely as a stop-gap arrangement, we request
Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2861/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA,B.V. NAGARATHNA
three-armed forces – Whether the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal would be amenable to challenge in the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India before any High Court – Held: The judgment in Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr. case does not lay down the correct performed by the Armed Forces and the discipline level required by these services. Thus, often many jurisprudential principles of other tribunals cannot be imported into the decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal . The Armed Forces have their own rules and 16 procedures, and if there is
Decision Date : 21-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/447/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,BELA M. TRIVEDI
Law Reference (2022) 5 SCC 695 relied on Para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8968 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2019 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.32 of 2019 with MA No. 645 of 2019. Indra Sen Singh, Abhishek TRIVEDI, J. 1. The present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 30(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Court No. 2 Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to
Decision Date : 07-11-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8968/2019 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HIMA KOHLI
– Disclosure in a sealed- cover to the adjudicating authority – Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dismissed the applications challenging the denial of Permanent Commission in the Indian Navy – Whether the AFT could have adjudicated on the validity of the selection proceedings when relevant AFT – Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of relevant material to the adjudicating authority in a sealed cover – Held: It makes the process of adjudication vague and opaque – Disclosure in a sealed cover perpetuates two problems – Firstly, it denies the
Decision Date : 20-10-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/841/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,BELA M. TRIVEDI
of this Court in Balbir Singh Turn and M.V. Mohanan Nair. The point that was considered by this Court in Balbir Singh Turn relates to the applicability of the benefit of MACPS from 1-1-2006. The respondents therein approached the Armed Forces Tribunal which held that the benefit of ACP to an employee is part of the pay structure which affects the pay and also his pension. The Armed Forces Tribunal held that an ACP is not an allowance but a part of pay and therefore, in terms of the government resolution, the employees were entitled for MACP with effect from 1-1-2006. This
Decision Date : 22-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5545/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Awards, 1982 – r.14 – Armed Forces Tribunal held that respondent was entitled to disability pension by allowing the application filed by him after 20 years – Held: Tribunal patently erred in law in proceeding on the basis of a misconceived notion that any ailment or disability of a of India v. Rajbir Singh (2015) 12 SCC 264 : [2015] 2 SCR 183 17 – held inapplicable. Case Law Reference [2015] 2 SCR 183 held inapplicable Para 17 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6536 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2020 of the Armed Forces Tribunal ,
Decision Date : 19-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6536/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : SURYA KANT,J.B. PARDIWALA
entertain the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. He, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Appeal Court and the writ appeal was ultimately ordered to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench, Lucknow. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the his claim for pension on the ground that he had not put in fifteen years of service and had been discharged for the reason that he was unlikely to become an efficient soldier. He again filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal .
Decision Date : 14-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11473/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY
the litigants in the field of environmental law. 28. The issue of direct appeals to the Supreme Court, or entertaining petitions under Article 136 to challenge tribunal’s decision, 15 Inter alia,Electricity Act, 2003; Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. 16 Inter alia, Armed Forces Tribunal the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 17 [1948]1KB223. 18 (2017) 7 SCC 221, Para. 36. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.] A B C D E F G H 320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R. was considered in the case of
Decision Date : 18-05-2022 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/433/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : INDIRA BANERJEE,A.S. BOPANNA
19][875-E-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2560 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2022 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Lucknow in OA No. 619 of 2021 and Order dated 28.01.2022 in MA No.76 of 2022 in OA No. 619 of 2021. Tushar Mehta, SG, appellants/Union of India & Ors. are before this Court in this appeal, assailing the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Lucknow (for short, ‘AFT’) in OA No.619 of 2021. Through the said order the AFT has allowed the OA and held that the respondent is entitled
Decision Date : 17-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2560/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
9 S.C.R. 581 581 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MAJOR R. METRI NO. 08585N (Criminal Appeal no. 2196 of 2017) APRIL 04, 2022 [L. NAGESHWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.] Service Law: Armed Force service – Interference by Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) – Scope Para 19 (1962) 3 SCR 10 followed Para 20 [2012] 5 SCR 1029 referred to Para 21 [2012] 4 SCR 366 referred to Para 44 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2196 of 2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2017 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Kochi in O.A.
Decision Date : 04-04-2022 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/2196/2017 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
Court of Inquiry” – Appellants, instead of invoking r.180 of the Army Rules, wherein opportunity was to be provided to the respondent, resorted to r.22 of the Army Rules and ordered attachment of the respondent under s.123 of the Army Act – This order was set aside by Armed Forces Tribunal consequential benefits in accordance with law – The arrears of such benefits shall be computed and paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the judgment – Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Dismissing the appeal and allowing the connected Transfer Case, the
Decision Date : 23-03-2022 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/2169/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : Appeal dismissed and Transferred Case allowed.

Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,S. RAVINDRA BHAT,BELA M. TRIVEDI
to employees (below the rank of officer). This court held that the scheme had to be applied from 01.01.2006, and not the date designated by the concerned order (01.09.2008). The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) held that ACP benefits granted to employees is part of the pay structure which not
Decision Date : 08-03-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1880/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
– Appellant invalided out of service – Sought grant of disability pension – Claim rejected by Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) – Appellant applied for grant of leave to appeal which was allowed by the AFT but with a different question of law than the one framed by the appellant – Held: A conjoint reading rules and regulations as are applicable to the Members of the Territorial Army. [Paras 24, 25][1033-C-E] Case Law Reference [1986] 2 SCR 278 relied on Para 22 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2275 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2018 of the Armed Forces Tribunal ,
Decision Date : 17-12-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2275/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA
the respondent’s resignation came to be accepted on 31.01.2007, however, it was stated that he was not entitled to any terminal benefits except for encashment of leave (the denial of the terminal benefits was the subject matter before the Armed Forces Tribunal ) – Tribunal directed the be said to be a “late entrant” and therefore not entitled to the benefit of Regulation 15 and therefore not entitled to the pensionary benefits. [Para 11][71-C-G] 4. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal dated 9.2.2018 in T.A. No. 25/2017 quashing
Decision Date : 30-09-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1027/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA
names of members who have casted their vote in last three years i.e., 2018, 2019 and 2020. (III) The Central Bar Association, Lucknow Bar Association, State Public Services Tribunal Bar Association, Central Administrative Tribunal Bar Association and Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association
Decision Date : 24-09-2021 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/15349/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,M.R. SHAH
Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (Army), an objection was raised to the maintainability of the petitions on the ground that the petitioners should be relegated to the pursuit of remedies before the Armed Forces Tribunal . However, this plea has not been pressed in
Decision Date : 25-03-2021 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/1109/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : S.A. BOBDE,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,SURYA KANT
– Accused found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment – Conviction and sentence affirmed by Armed Forces Tribunal – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Conviction is affirmed – However, in the peculiar facts of the case, sentence of life imprisonment reduced to the period already by the Court Martial as confirmed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) thereby, holding, that the appellant was liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 for committing a civil offence of murder. [Para 4] [969-C] 2.1 Section 433-A of Cr.P.C
Decision Date : 18-03-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/2035/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,AJAY RASTOGI
age of superannuation prior to the filing of writ petitions, subject to the decision of Supreme Court in Babita Puniya case which was pending. In Priya Khurana’s case, Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in a batch of six Original Applications (OAs) by seven SSC officers inter alia declared
Decision Date : 17-03-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2182/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA
from superior officer alleging that the sailor used physical force against him – Application before Armed Forces Tribunal – Tribunal substituted the punishment of dismissal from service to the punishment of his detention for 75 days – Appeal by State to Supreme Court – Held: In the facts of unless the order of Tribunal is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious – The view taken by the Tribunal in the present case is patently not illegal – Navy Act, 1957 – s. 45(a) – Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – ss. 15(6) and 30. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1 In terms
Decision Date : 21-01-2020 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/831/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : DEEPAK GUPTA,ANIRUDDHA BOSE
RAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2020) JANUARY 09, 2020 [DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.] Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: ss. 14(1) and 34 – Transfer of pending cases to Armed Forces Tribunal – Whether an appeal the order of Single Judge of a High Court deciding a case related to armed forces personnel, pending before High Court, can be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal – Held: As per s. 14(1), Armed Forces Tribunal can exercise powers of all the Courts except the Supreme Court or High
Decision Date : 09-01-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/131/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : DEEPAK GUPTA,SANJIV KHANNA
rounding off (of his disability) by applying the provisions of Para 7.2 of the Circular, as done by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) – AFT erred in applying the principles of rounding off (of disability) without determining whether appellant was entitled to disability pension at all – If a person is not entitled to the disability pension, there would be no question of rounding off. [Paras 6, 9][993-D-F; 994-B] 3. The Armed Forces Tribunal (‘AFT’) put the cart before the horse. It applied the principles of rounding off without determining whether the
Decision Date : 11-12-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10870/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA
OF INDIA & ORS. v. P. S. GILL (Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 2013) NOVEMBER 27, 2019 [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.] Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: ss.14 and 15 – Allegations pertaining to irregularities in procurement of ration – the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2011 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi in O.A. No. 147 of 2010/ order dated 30.05.2012 in M.A. No. 203 of 2012. Ms. Diksha Rai, Rajesh Ranjan, Ms. Snidha Mehra, Hemant Arya, Ishan Bisht, Ms. Palak Mahajan, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Decision Date : 27-11-2019 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/404/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : RANJAN GOGOI,N.V. RAMANA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,DEEPAK GUPTA,SANJIV KHANNA
resolve. From the compilation of the learned Attorney General, it appears that the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the Armed Forces Tribunal , the National Green Tribunal and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal would require immediate attention.
Decision Date : 13-11-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8588/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA
to Para 22 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4714- 4715 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2010 and 12.04.2011 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Kochi in T.A. No. 84 of 2010 and in I.A. No. 205 of 2010 in T.A. No. 84 of 2010. Madhavi Divan, ASG, R. appeals is to the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Kochi1 on 26th October, 2010 and April 12, 2011 holding that the respondent2 is entitled to service element of disability pension from the date of discharge. 2. The facts in brief are that the applicant was discharged
Decision Date : 07-11-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4714/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA
v. Union of India (1998) 5 SCC 454 – relied on. Case Law Reference (1998) 5 SCC 454 relied on. Para 24 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8139 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2017 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Jabalpur in EA/04 (J)/2016 in RE Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Jabalpur1 on 9th February, 2017 whereby, an Original Application filed by the respondent – Lt.
Decision Date : 05-11-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8139/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA
service – Consequently, he was discharged from service – Claim for disability pension – Rejected by the Armed Forces Tribunal – Plea of appellant that since no note was given at the time of enrolment in the Army, therefore, such disability was to be attributed to military service – Held: It is JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7672 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2011 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench at Lucknow in OA No. 235 of 2010/ Order dated 28.04.2017 in MA Nos. 720 & 721 of 2017 in OA No.235 of 2010. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv., Ms. Chitrangda
Decision Date : 03-10-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7672/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA
COMMODORE NAVEEN JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3019 of 2017) OCTOBER 03, 2019 [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.] Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: Promotion policy – Criteria – Merit-cum-seniority or Seniority-cum-merit – Para 25 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.3019 of 2017. From the Judgment dated 09.03.2016 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.410/2015. Sridhar Potaraju, Sudhanshu Pandey, Ms. Sweta Parihar, Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Abhishek R. Shukla, Ms. G. Usha Sri,
Decision Date : 03-10-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3019/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,AJAY RASTOGI
which was rejected – Thereafter, respondent filed original application before the Armed Forces Tribunal – Tribunal despite noting that the punishment of censure awarded by the competent authority, cannot be faulted, held that punishment of ‘Severe Displeasure (Recordable)’ was not 2 SCR 377 referred to Para 15 [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 470 referred to Para 15 [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 217 referred to Para 15 [2013] 8 SCR 988 referred to Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7603 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2016 of the Armed Forces Tribunal ,
Decision Date : 25-09-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7603/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA
Armed Forces Tribunal held the respondent entitled to disability pension – On appeal, held: In terms of Leave Rules, the casual leave and annual leave count as duty– However, in terms of Rule 11(a) of the said Rules, an individual on casual leave is not deemed to actually perform duty during India & Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 228; Union of India & Ors. v. Jujhar Singh (2011) A B C D E F G H 129 7 SCC 735 : [2011] 8 SCR 258; Jagtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. Decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal dtd. November 2, 2010 in T.A. No. 61 of 2010 – referred to. Case Law
Decision Date : 20-09-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4981/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : ARUN MISHRA,M.R. SHAH,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
appellant filed application before the Armed Forces Tribunal , which was dismissed – Review application was also dismissed – On appeal, held: Award of four red ink entries simply pushes the individual concerned into a grey area where he can be considered for discharge – But just because he on. Case Law Reference [2015] 10 SCR 1013 relied on Para 4.2 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7452- 7453 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2015 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Bench at Jaipur in Original Application T.A. No. 02 of 2011 and order dated 31.08.2015
Decision Date : 20-09-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7452/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA
OF INDIA & ORS. v. SANDEEP KUMAR ETC. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1388-1389 of 2019) SEPTEMBER 13, 2019 [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.] Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – s.15 – Power of the Tribunal – 71 Armoured Regiment was deputed for T-90 dismissal from service – Set aside by the Armed Forces Tribunal , directing reinstatement of both the accused– Held: Primary evidence of the prosecution is the confessional statements made by the accused – Tribunal completely misread Army Order No. 256 of 1972 to hold that the confessional
Decision Date : 13-09-2019 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1388/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA
5 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1857 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2014 in TA No. 286 of 2010 (arising out of CWP 13268 of 2009)/order dated 21.02.2017 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Chandigarh Regional Bench at Chandimandir in MA No. 3876 & 3877 of
Decision Date : 02-09-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1857/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA
COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6977- 6978 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2011 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Lucknow in T.A. No. 1120 of 2010 and order dated 28.05.2013 in R.A. No. 03 of 2013 in T.A. No. Allahabad but subsequently on commencement of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow. The learned Tribunal found that the appellant was placed in permanent Low Medical Category BEE and was discharged from service on August 31,
Decision Date : 02-09-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6977/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA
to the Officers involved in the Operation Vijay – Thus, the direction of the tribunal is set aside. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2047- 2048 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2010 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench at New Delhi in T.A. No.
Decision Date : 23-08-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2047/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,SURYA KANT
– Constitution of India – Part III. Army Act, 1950: s. 63 – Prosecution under – Accused already acquitted, subject to confirmation – Judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal is set aside – Confirmation proceedings may go on and reach its logical conclusion – Appeal allowed. *Joseph Shine v. Union India (2019) 3 SCC 39 : [2018] 11 SCR 765 – followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3204 of 2019 From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2019 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu in Original Application No. 450 of 2017 Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr.
Decision Date : 02-08-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3204/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,INDIRA BANERJEE
with an 80% disability – Appellant was discharged from service – Appellant’s claim seeking the grant of disability pension was allowed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) – Appellant moved the AFT seeking payment of ex-gratia compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- based on policy circular dtd. 26 two years until 26 Dec. 2012. During the course of extended tenure, the appellant suffered a stroke and was re-categorised into the category described as SHAPE-3 (Permanent) with an 80% disability. The appellant was discharged from service. In 2013, the Appellant moved the Armed Forces Tribunal
Decision Date : 24-07-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6126/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,INDIRA BANERJEE
– He died six years thereafter on 30 September 2007 – His wife (appellant) filed O.A. claiming pension in respect of service rendered by her deceased spouse in Indian Army on the ground that no Invalidation Medical Board was held prior to discharge of her spouse – Armed Forces Tribunal 15 SCR 879 referred to Para 4 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1280 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2011 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 452 of 2010 and order dated 16.03.2016 in M.A. No. 185 of 2016 in O.A. No. 452
Decision Date : 16-07-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1280/2019 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,INDIRA BANERJEE
shoulder – Summary Court Martial (SCM)– Appellant dismissed from service – Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) while holding that the charge was duly established, concluded that the punishment of dismissal being disproportionate be modified to discharge – Plea of appellant that convening of an SCM is by Court would be circumspect in reassessing the evidence when the Armed Forces Tribunal has duly applied its mind to the findings of fact. The submission of the appellant has also been duly assessed that the appellant had lodged a complaint in the past against the spouse of the victim
Decision Date : 08-07-2019 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/210/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
and Orders dated 11.04.2012 and 25.05.2012 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 1182 of 2011 and in M.A. No. 667 of 2012 and R.A. No. 22 of 2012 in O.A. No.1182 of 2011 respectively With Civil Appeal No. 4607 of 2019. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.,
Decision Date : 03-07-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4605/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA
failed to retaliate against the militants due to which the militants broke the cordon and killed ‘GS’ – Appellant dismissed from service, sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months by the Summary General Court Martial (SGCM) – Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) upheld the order – On appeal, by the appellant, which he would not have been aware of if he was actually unconscious. In that circumstance, when the evidence has been adverted to by the Armed Forces Tribunal and when such conclusion reached does not indicate any perversity it would not be appropriate for Supreme Court
Decision Date : 02-07-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9885/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11485 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2018 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 19 of 2017 with M.A. No. 764 of 2018/final order dated 17.09.2018 in M.A. No. 1521 in O.A. No. 19 of 2017 with M.A. denial of disability pension to the appellant for the period between 24 March 1995 and 30 January 2014 was misconceived. The disability element has already been rounded off in pursuance of the previous order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal . 12. We accordingly, allow the appeal and direct
Decision Date : 08-04-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11485/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
Respondent-sepoy in the Indian Army failed to report to his new unit – He was declared to be a deserter – However, respondent reported after a lapse of 302 days – He was tried by a Summary Court Martial – Respondent pleaded guilty and he was dismissed from service – However, Armed Forces Tribunal responsible member of the Armed Forces should not have absented himself from service without permission – Judgment and order of the Armed Forces Tribunal set aside. The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army as a Sepoy in the Army Service Corps. Having failed to report to his new Unit,
Decision Date : 11-03-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3095/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9721 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2013 by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 426/2012 with M.A. No. 50/2013. R. K. Anand, Uday Gupta, Ms. Shivani Lal, Hiren Dasan, M. K. Tripathi, Mohan Pandey,
Decision Date : 01-03-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9721/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
of that jurisdiction and taking over the essential function [2019] 4 S.C.R. 582 582 A B C D E F G H 583 of determining whether or not recourse to the disciplinary jurisdiction was warranted – Service law – Armed Forces – Jurisdiction – Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 – Constitution was misconceived. Also, having regard to the definition of the expression “service matters” in Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal under Section 14, such a Writ Petition ought not to have been entertained by the High Court.
Decision Date : 15-02-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1714/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
Service (PSS) – Application for – Withdrawal – Permissibility – Request by appellants (four officers) for PSS was allowed – They underwent pre-release course – Application for withdrawal of PSS rejected – Challenged the rejection order in Armed Forces Tribunal – Three officers 5 Suppl. SCR 438 referred to Para 35 (1998) 9 SCC 559 distinguished Para 35 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10953 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2014 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 467 of 2013. WITH Civil Appeal
Decision Date : 29-01-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10953/2014 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
EX. LAC YOGESH PATHANIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (I.A. No. 1/2016) In (Civil Appeal D. No. 14214 of 2016) JANUARY 08, 2019 [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.] Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – s.30 r/w s.31 – Disciplinary proceedings – Breach Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the respondents. A B C D E F G H 163 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 30 read with Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (for short “the Act”) along with IA No. 1 of 2016 seeking leave
Decision Date : 08-01-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/14214/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : IA along with Appeal dismissed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,M.R. SHAH
– Appellant, Sepoy in the Indian Army was dismissed from service by Summary Court Martial – Challenged before Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) – Dismissed – Plea of appellant that he was entitled to the benefit of legal advise u/r.129 of the 1954 Rules which he was denied on the ground that natural justice. The prejudice too is evident. The appellant was dismissed from service and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Both his livelihood and liberty were taken away. The judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal is set aside. [Paras 15-17][1317-E-G] CIVIL APPELLATE
Decision Date : 10-12-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6886/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,M.R. SHAH
the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench at Guwahati in O.A. No. 01 of 2012 & M.A. No. 12 of 2012 in O.A. No. 01 of 2012. S. B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the Appellants. Mani Bhushan Sinha, Pranab Prakash, Gopal Singh, Advs. for the defends the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting him the pay over the extended period of study leave. Justice has been delayed, inordinately delayed. That it was not denied should be a small recompense for an officer who devoted the prime years of life in service of the
Decision Date : 07-12-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8379/2014 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
such benefits which a spouse and children of a retired officer would be entitled – Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – s.30 r/w s.31(2). [2018] 14 S.C.R. 665 665 A B C D E F G H 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R. Allowing the appeals, the JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11876- 11877 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2015 in OA No. 420 of 2013 and dated 03.07.2015 in RA No. 19 of 2015 in OA No. 420 of 2013 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi. Gaichangpou Gangmei, Adv. for the
Decision Date : 05-12-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11876/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
recommended ‘S’, though the petitioner was senior to him – Aggrieved, Petitioner approached Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which decided in his favour – Appeal was filed by Union of India before the Supreme Court, which directed by judgment dated 01.08.2018 that the matter be placed before to as the ‘SPB (Medical)’}, which was constituted to consider the cases of promotion and held its sitting on 20th January, 2016, did not empanel him for promotion to the said rank. The petitioner filed the Original Application (OA) before the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
Decision Date : 29-10-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/980/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,INDU MALHOTRA
in Indian Army – Maintainability of – Held: Postings and transfers are a necessary incident of service – Grievance against the same, if any, cannot be entertained u/Art. 32, as alternate statutory remedy is available before Armed Forces Tribunal . Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: 1. threshold on this count alone. 5.2. It was further submitted that if the Writ Petitioners have any grievance, the alternate remedy of challenging the Posting Orders before the Armed Forces Tribunal is available. Hence, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on this
Decision Date : 06-09-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/918/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR
– A person selected as Member of the CESTAT shall continue until the age of 62 years while a person holding the post of President shall continue until the age of 65 years. Tribunal: Age of superannuation – AFT – Members of the Armed Forces Tribunal shall hold office until the attainment of
Decision Date : 21-08-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/279/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
the judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal warranting interference – Service Law – Promotion – Promotion Policy. Service Law – Promotion policy – Change in – Held: It is the authority of the employer to frame promotion policy for promotion of its officers and employees – When an employer has power down in the Order dated 22.05.2006 to make appellant eligible for one mark. No error is found in the Promotion Board (Medical) not allocating one mark for two years training program. Armed Forces Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the above claim also. No error is found in the
Decision Date : 06-08-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8047/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
4 Suppl. SCR 333 referred to Para 34 [1968] 3 SCR 363 referred to Para 34 (2005) UKHL 28 referred to Para 42 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5800 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2018 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi in He is now aspiring to hold the position of Director General Medical Services (Army) [hereinafter referred to as ‘DGMS (Army)] which has been denied to him by the appellants. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent had approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (for short, ‘ AFT’), Principal Bench,
Decision Date : 01-08-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5800/2018 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,INDU MALHOTRA
subsequently joined its Submarine Arm – Appellants aggrieved with the refusal of the respondents to take Submarine Pay into account while calculating pension payable to them – Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) held that submarine pay/allowance cannot be counted for the purpose of determining includible in “pay”, for the purposes of computing the Service Pension of the appellants– Order passed by AFT set aside– Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Navy(Pension) Regulations,1964 – Regulations 86 and 84. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section I of Chapter III of the
Decision Date : 11-07-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10035/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,UDAY UMESH LALIT
to Para 5 [1993] 3 SCR 669 referred to Para 5 [2008] 1 SCR 449 referred to Para 5 [1989] 2 SCR 370 referred to Para 6 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil appeal no. 11009 of 2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2017 in OA. No. 260 of 2016 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. These appeals question the following judgments and orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Lucknow. (a) Civil Appeal No.11009 of 2017 is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2017: (b) Civil Appeal (Diary) No.40312 of 2017 with
Decision Date : 03-07-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11009/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R. LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2020 of 2013) MAY 18, 2018 [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 : s. 3(o) – Commissioned Officer (appellant) Indian Army – Inducted in an organization (DGQA) functioning under Ministry of Defence – Refusal of permanent secondment to the appellant in DGQA – Refusal order challenged before Armed Forces Tribunal – Dismissed as not maintainable – On appeal, held: Enumerations under s. 3(o) indicate
Decision Date : 18-05-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2020/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
distinguished Para 29 EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A B C D E F G H 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6785 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2014 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , years as claimed by the said appellants. Therefore, the moot question is as to whether the appellants, after rendering actual service of 10 years in the Navy, were drafted into Fleet Reserve or not. 2. The appellants had filed O.A. No. 8 of 2013 before the Armed Forces Tribunal
Decision Date : 08-05-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6785/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : MADAN B. LOKUR,DEEPAK GUPTA
Order dated 03.09.2015 in Review Application vide M. A. No. 2475 of 2015 and RA No. 76 of 2015 in O. A. No. 2002 of 2011 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Chandigarh at Chandimandir. Sandeep Sethi, ASG, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Rohatgi, Shashank Khurana, Himanshu
Decision Date : 24-04-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4415/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. CDR. RAVINDRA V. DESAI (Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2016) APRIL 18, 2018 [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: ss.30 and 31 – Court Martial proceedings – JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2015 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Mumbai in Original Application No. 55 of 2014 WITH Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 2016. A B C D E F G H 809 Maninder Singh, ASG, Amit Sharma,
Decision Date : 18-04-2018 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/579/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR
Members w.e.f. 30.12.2017 SCSC not constituted, although the process for constituting the same has been initiated. NA NA NA NA 8 Armed Forces Tribunal 8- Administrativ e Members 8- Judicial Members Composition of the Selection committee under the constituted. NA NA NA NA SCSC Constituted NO NA NA NA NO Member- 24 vacancies SCSC not yet constituted. NA NA NA NA KUDRAT SANDHU v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A B C D E F G H 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R. For the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), the composition
Decision Date : 22-02-2018 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/279/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued

Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
to 01.01.1996, filed O.As. before Armed Forces Tribunal for grant of next higher scale to one held by them at the time of retirement – Some claims were rejected while others were allowed by Tribunal – On appeal, held: A perusal of Order dtd. 21.11.1997 indicates that what was conveyed Officers, which pre-supposes that these officers were in the establishment on 01.01.1996. Thus, applicants were clearly not entitled for grant of benefit of higher pay scale under the order dated 21.11.1997. The orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal extending the said benefit to those
Decision Date : 21-02-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/770/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
appellant’s disability at 30% – O.A filed by appellant before Armed Forces Tribunal for grant of medical disability pension, rejected on ground that it cannot be granted to the appellant as he had taken voluntary retirement much before the cut off date for grant of disability pension, to the appellant to file a Review Petition before the Tribunal, in event, the claim was pressed and not considered. [Para 15][677-G-H] Union of India v. Ajay Wahi (2010) 11 SCC 213 : [2010] 7 SCR 777 ; Lt. Col. P.KKapur (Retd.) v. Union of India [Decision of Armed Forces Tribunal ,
Decision Date : 16-02-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3101/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
leave were deducted from his post retirement dues on the ground that he committed breach of contract by not serving for nine years – Order of recovery challenged – Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed the case of appellant – On appeal to Supreme Court, appellant took the plea that since he / Order dated 09.09.2017 in M. A. No. 1493 of 2017 with M.A. No. 1494 of 2017 in O. A. No. 188 of 2013 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Lucknow. Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Abhishek R. Shukla, Arjun Singh, Advs for the Appellant. Vikramjit Banerjee, Sr. Adv,
Decision Date : 01-02-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1491/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
from service for obtaining enrolment on the basis of fake relationship certificate – Representation made by appellant, rejected by respondents – Original Application (OA) challenging the said order filed by appellant before Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) – AFT upheld the 1804 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2017 by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1608 of 2016. Manjunath Meled, Anuj Saini, Govind, Anil Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. The appellant
Decision Date : 09-01-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1804/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : MADAN B. LOKUR,DEEPAK GUPTA
implement the revised pay structure of pay bands and grade B pay, as well as pensio,n with effect from Ol.lil.2006. The second part of the Clause lays down that all allowances except the Dearness Allowance/relief will be effective from 01.09.2008. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) rightly held 02.02.2015 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Chandigarh, Regional .Bench at Chandimandir in O.A. No. 2147 of2012 and M.A. No. 9647-48 of2014 in O.A. No. 2147 of2012 respectively WITH Civil Appeal Diary Nos. 5183, 5184, 6249 and 7888 of2017. Civil Appeal Diary Nos. 18265, 31768, 38019,
Decision Date : 08-12-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3744/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
Order dated 02.09.2017 in O. A. No. 1093 of 20JV and Judgment and Order dated 05.10.2017 in M.A. No. 1252of2017 of the Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal , New Delhi. Maninder Singh, ASG, Harish V. Shankar, Raj iv Nanda, Ms. Nisha G Mohandas, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ad vs. for the Appellants. However, even Review SPB did not empancl him for the promotional rank. After exhausting departmental remedies in the form C of statutory complaint etc .. the respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (for short, ‘AFT’) and has finally succeeded inasmuch as vi de orders dated 2″‘1 September,
Decision Date : 10-11-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/17535/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : DIPAK MISRA,AMITAVA ROY,A.M. KHANWILKAR
Order dated 17.03.2017 in M.A. No.43 of 2017 in 0. A. No. 77of2015 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Chennai. R. Balasubramanian, Ms.Aarti Sharma, Mukul Sirigh, Prakash Gautam, Hemant Arya, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the Appellants. Rabin Majumder, Adv. for the Respondent. which, however, was rejected vide order dated l21h February, 2015. The respondent then filed an original application before the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench at Chennai, Circuit Bench at Hyderabad, being O.A. No.77 of 2015. The same was partly allowed vide the impugned E judgment. In
Decision Date : 10-08-2017 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/967/2017 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : DIPAK MISRA,AMITAVA ROY,A.M. KHANWILKAR
other officers namely, Air Commodore P. Chakraborty and Honorary Flying Officer P.K. Choudhury, who had suffered more percentage of disability than that of the appellant were granted promotion, he approached the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Mumbai at Mumbai by way of Original
Decision Date : 25-07-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8834/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : DIPAK MISRA,R. BANUMATHI
Para 14 Para 17 Para 19 CIVIL. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2633 of2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2014 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Jaipur, Rajasthan in 0. A. No. 200/ 2010. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Adv. for the Appellants. Atma Ram ASG., Ms. V. D. Makhija, Sr. Adv., Dr. Nishesh Sharma, V. Balaj i, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the Respondents~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. I. This appeal arises out of the order dated 21 .03.2014 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional
Decision Date : 22-02-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2633/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : DIPAK MISRA,UDAY UMESH LALIT
B c D E F G H (2017] 1 S.C.R. 422 MOHAMMED ANSARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. I 0131 of2016) FEBRUARY 02, 2017 [illPAK MISRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Central Civil (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Matter pertaining to GREF(General Reserve Engineering Force) personnel – Jurisdiction of Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)/Central Administrative Tribunal(CAI)lorigina/ jurisdiction of the High Court u!Art.
Decision Date : 02-02-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10131/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : DIPAK MISRA,R. BANUMATHI
recruitment racket – Confessional statement of the employee – General Commanding Officer dismissed the service oI the employee – The order affirmed by Armed Forces Tribunal – On· appeal, held: GOC in exercise of his rights uls.20(3) of Army Act r! w. r.17 of Army Rules passed the order UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. the Act coupled with rule 17 of the Rules, and dismissed the appellant from services w.e.f. 10.07 .. 2011. After having rightly appraised the evidence on record and the law dealing with the subject, the Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed the application filed by
Decision Date : 17-01-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/352/2017 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR
medical doctors engaged as Commissioned Officers in Army Medical Crops-AMC Cadre – Doctors of AMC, with more than 20 years of commissioned/Group A Gaze/led service – Applications by doctors seeking DACP before the Armed Forces Tribunal – Tribunal allowed the applications relying on the are set aside and instead the respective Original Applications are remanded to the tribunal for reconsideration of the entire matter de novo. [Paras 17, 18] [518-B-D] Col. Sanjeev Sehgal 0.A. No. 488 of 2011 Armed Forces Tribunal – referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Decision Date : 12-01-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3798/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : APPEALS AND WRIT PETITION DISPOSED OF

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
services by the petitioners 2 as .. by regularly appointed/ recruited porters.” 2. Similarly situated porters engaged by the Indian Army as casual labour instituted a proceeding before the Armed Forces Tribunal at its Principal Bench in New Delhi.’ By ajuclgment dated 11 May 20 I 0, the
Decision Date : 02-01-2017 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/616/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
been punished while in I-I service on nine occasions inclusive of six red ink entries. The appellant 200 VIJA Y SHANKAR MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 20 l again filed a writ petition before the High Court which was transferred A to the Armed Forces Tribunal . Application filed by appellant 8) (239-E-G) 2. The Armed Forces Tribunal was, therefore, in error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant. The orders of the Tribmial;i,re set aside. Since the appellant would have attained the age of superannuation, the ends of justice would be met if he is treated to have
Decision Date : 15-12-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/12179/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR
Para7 2007 (8) SCR 883 referred to Para7 1997 (5) Suppl. SCR 433 referred to Para8 2006 (1) SCR 1006 referred to Para8 1968 SCR 185 referred to Para8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2147 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2010 of the Armed Forces Tribunal 2147 of201 l arises from an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Original Application No. 182 of2009 dated 4th February, 2010. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the applicants therein for grant of a “Special Pension”. In Civil Appeal No. 8566of2014
Decision Date : 27-10-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2147/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,R. BANUMATHI
Navy officials – Court Martial trial – Conviction on the basis of the witnesses PWs 14 and 18 (Bank Manager and Clerk) – Their dismissal with disgrace alongwith other consequential penalties – In statutory appeal conviction confirmed – Armed Forces Tribunal disbelieved the identification of – Reinstatement. Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – s.30 – Power under – Scope of – Held: In exercise ofp01rer u/s.30,Supreme Court normally does not reappreciate the evidence and is slow in inte1:fering with the findings of the Armed Forces Tribunal , unless there is substantial question
Decision Date : 13-07-2016 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/325/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,UDAY UMESH LALIT
challenge common judgment and order dated 13.12.2015 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Kolkata in TA Nos.6 and 8 of 2011. Though one of the questions raised was relating to the competence of the CO of the Unit where the accused were later sent on attachment, to convene, constitute 9. In Civil Appeal No.6679of2015 decision of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 24.01.2014 dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.401 of2014 affirming the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Jaipur in dismissing/ rejecting the challenge to the sentence of dismissal from service and
Decision Date : 05-07-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8360/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,R. BANUMATHI
Appeal. No. 4853 of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2011 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Chandigarh Bench at Chandimandir in T. A. No. 242 of 2009. N. K. Ghai, Naresh Kumar, Ravinder Kumar Singh,Advs. for the Appellant. R. Balasubramanian, R. S. Nagar, R. K. Verma, Santosh B. V. Baiaram Das, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted. 419 A B c D E F G 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 13.05.2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Chandigarh in T.A. No.242
Decision Date : 06-05-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4853/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,KURIAN JOSEPH
B c D E F [2016] 2 S.C.R. 426 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. LT. COL. P.K. CHOUDHARY AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3208of2015) FEBRUARY 15,2016 [T. S. THAKUR, CJI AND KURIAN JOSEPH, J.] Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – s. 31 – Restructuring of officers’ cadre of Pandey, Manish Kumar, Jitendra Tripathi, Ms. Neela Gokhale, Gaurav Kumar, Devanshu Shanna, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advs. with him for the appearing pa1ties. The Judgment of the Cou11 was delivered by T. S. THAKUR, CJI. I. These appeals under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal
Decision Date : 15-02-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3208/2015 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed

Judge : ANIL R. DAVE,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

Decision Date : 05-01-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,V. GOPALA GOWDA,R. BANUMATHI
Civil Appeal D. No. 32135 of2013 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2011 of the G Armed Forces Tribunal Chandigarh Regional Bench, Lucknow in Transferred Application No. 16 of2011 Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Girish Chand Tyagi, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Kailash Pandey, Balendra Tiwari, S. THAKUR, J. 1.This appeal under Section 31 of the B Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, is directed against a judgment and order dated 14th December 2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench at Lucknow whereby the Tribunal has dismissed Transferred Application No.16 of
Decision Date : 16-10-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/32135/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,R. BANUMATHI
were neither attributable to nor aggravated due to military service E – Respondent filed appeal which was rejected – Armed Forces Tribunal , however, allowed application filed by respondent holding that he was entitled to disability pension for 75% disability from the date of invalidation – the Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Chandigarh (for short ‘the tribunal’) whereby the tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent observing that the respondent is entitled to get disabiljty pension for 75% disability from the date of his E invalidation. 3. Brief
Decision Date : 26-08-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6583/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,R.K. AGRAWAL,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
April, 2007 – Applicable to 0 AFMS officers of the rank of Lt. General and its equivalent as well as to Director General Armed Force Medical Services – Constitutional validity of- Armed Forces Tribunal held that prescription of fixed tenure by the order dated 20.4.2007 was ultra vires of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2014 in 0. A. No. 250 of 2014 and dated 15.09.2014 in M.A. No. 541 of 2014 in O.A. No. 250 of250 of2014 &O.A. No. 296 of2014 H 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. · Ranjit Kumar, SG, Binu
Decision Date : 24-07-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9382/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

Judge : DIPAK MISRA,N.V. RAMANA
· 2. Be it stated, the initial order was challenged before the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 7266 of 2009 and after B coming into force of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (for short ‘the 2007 Act’) and the constitution of the tribunal the matter was transferred to the
Decision Date : 09-07-2015 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1112/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,N.V. RAMANA
B c [2015] 4 S.C.R. 676 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. MAJOR GENERAL SHRI KANT SHARMA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No .. 7400 of 2013) MARCH 11, 2015 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007: ss.30, 31 – Whether ss.30 and 31 bar the of High Court from hearing writ petition u!Art.226 against the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal – Held: Right of appeal uls.30 against an order of D Armed Forces Tribunal with the leave of the Tribunal u/s.31 or leave granted by the Supreme Court or bar of leave to appeal u/Art. 136(2),
Decision Date : 11-03-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7400/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,N.V. RAMANA
the Judgment and Order dated B 03.12.2010 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Chandigarh Bench at Chandi Mandir, in 0. A. No. 837 of 2010. Rama Mukherjee, B. V. Bairam Das, Chelan Chawla, Anil Katiyar for the Appellants. C Col. S. R. Kalka!, R. C. Kaushik for the Respondent. The Judgment of Court was delivered by D N.V. RAMANA, J. 1.This appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 3’ct December, 2010 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Chandigarh, Bench at Chandimandir in OA No.837/2010 whereby the tribunal allowed the E Respondent’s application for grant of
Decision Date : 24-02-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11208/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,R. BANUMATHI
of the Armed Forces Tribunal Chandigarh in OA No. 114 of 2010 with C.A. Nos. 2905, 3409, 5144, 2279, 1498, 5090, D 5414,5163,5840,7368,7479,7629,5469, 10747and11398 of2011, 183, 167 of2012, 10105, of2011, 5819, C.A. D 5260 of2012, C.A. Nos. 16394 of2013, 1856, 1854, 1855, 1858 &
Decision Date : 13-02-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2904/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,N.V. RAMANA
JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9389 of 2014. · From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2013 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 401 of 2013. F G H 932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R. A R. Balasubramanian, Sadhna Sandhu, B.
Decision Date : 20-01-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9389/2014 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,R. BANUMATHI
Reference: [1949] 1 All E.R. 932 referred to 1962 SC 605 relied on [1·941] 3 All E.R. 272 referred to para 15 para 17 para 18 CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal B No. 242 of 2012 c From the Judgment & Order dated 26.10.2009 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , THAKUR, J. Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2012: D E F 1. High Court of Delhi has, while dismissing writ petition No.4652 of 2010 filed by the appellant, affirmed the orders G passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , New Delhi and that passed by the Summary General Court Martial holding
Decision Date : 30-10-2014 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/242/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,C. NAGAPPAN
dated 02.05.2013 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in Transfer Application No. 385/09 in Writ Petition.No. 7811/09; · G Transfer Application No. 386/09 in Writ Petition No. 9772/09 and Original Application No. 99/09 and order dated 21.05.2013 in Misc. G Sreedevi and Rabin Majumder, Advs., for the Respondents. · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. THAKUR, J. 1. These appeals arise out of separate but similar orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the Tribunal has allowed
Decision Date : 24-09-2014 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4717/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

Judge : B.S. CHAUHAN,DIPAK MISRA
16 S.C.R. 495 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. SANJAY JETH! AND ANOTHER (CIVIL· APPEAL NO. 891-t OF 2012) OCTOBER 18, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] A . B Armed Forces Rules, 1954 – rr. 177, 179 and 180 – Armed Forces Tribunal – Tribunal setting aside the witnesses and, most importantly, nothing should take place behind his E back. Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – s. 14 – Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the tribunal in service matters – Held: Tribunal required to decide both questions of law and facts F that may be raised before it
Decision Date : 18-10-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/891/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

100

Judge : G.S. SINGHVI,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI,S.A. BOBDE
having been rejected, he filed another W~it Petition praying for directions to the respondents to constitute a Review Medical Board to re-evaluate his disease. E Meanwhile the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 was enacted and the second writ petition filed by the appellant was transferred to Armed Forces Tribunal . The Tribunal held against the appellant observing that F recommendations made by the Medical Board were binding and could not be subjected to judicial review, and therefore the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1~ Although, the Courts are
Decision Date : 02-07-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5922/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

101

Judge : AFTAB ALAM,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 422 relied on para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 377-378 of 2013. From the Judgment & Order dated 05.08.2010 & 213 G H 214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A 06.10.2010 of the Armed Forces Tribunal , regional Bench, Lucknow in TA 157 Commission in the AMC, he was denied the Commission on the ground that he was not eligible being in Medical Category E SHAPE-II. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents before the Armed Forces Tribunal , the reason assigned for denial of Commission to the appellant was
Decision Date : 08-01-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/377/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

102

Judge : T.S. THAKUR,GYAN SUDHA MISRA
2 S.C.R. 571 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. BRIGADIER P.S. GILL (Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 2012) MARCH 23, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] A B Armed Forces Triburral Act, 2007 – ss. 30(1) and 31 – Appeal against final decision/order of the Armed Forces Tribunal – a statute should be construed with respect to the context and the other clauses of the Act. The question for consideration in the present F appeals was whether an aggrieved party can file an appeal u/s. 30 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 against final decision/order of the Armed Forces Tribunal ,
Decision Date : 23-03-2012 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/564/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed

103

Judge : AFTAB ALAM,C.K. PRASAD
procurement of stores through local purchase by committing procedural irregularities/ illegalities. The Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed Original Application filed by the appellant and rejected his challenge to the direction for the General Court Martial to re-assemble for his trial (9) SCR 1025 referred to referred to Para 3 Para 3 A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. B 2107 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 19.08.2011 of the The Armed Forces Tribunal , Regional Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No. 116 of 2011. R.
Decision Date : 15-02-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2107/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed

104

Judge : MARKANDEY KATJU,GYAN SUDHA MISRA
from the Armed Forces Tribunal , in as much as the Commission would be a recommendatory body and not an adjudicatory body and would not be confined to following the relevant rules relating to service conditions, pension etc. but can recommend F change of the same, if required – Claim of travel to other places away from· B Chandigarh. The fifth member, if a retired person, will also get the same. c D E F 19. We make it clear that this Commission is different from the Armed Forces Tribunal in the following ways : 1 . The Commission is only a recommendatory body
Decision Date : 15-11-2010 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/291/2010 | Disposal Nature : Hearing Adjourned

AFT Judgments, Supreme Court of India

MediumPulse

Recent Posts