OA 1739 of 2014. Case: Arun Kumar Thakur Vs Union of India and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case NumberOA 1739 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: O.P. Chauhan, Advocate and For Respondents: R.S. Dogra, Sr. PC
JudgesPrakash Krishna, J. (Member (J)) and Lt. Gen. Sanjiv Chachra, Member (Ad.)
IssueService Law
Judgement DateMay 06, 2016
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal

Order:

(Chandigarh Regional Bench
Circuit Bench Shimla)

  1. The present petition has been filed on the allegation that the applicant stands promoted as Lt. Col. (S) Artillery on 01.01.1987 w.e.f. 15.07.1986 but he has been made to retire in the rank of Lt. Col. (TS) on 31.05.1988.

  2. The facts are not much in dispute and are admitted by the parties. The only dispute is with regard to the rank the applicant should have held at the time of his retirement from the Army. The applicant claims that after getting the regular rank of Lt. Col. on 15.07.1986, he was due to be promoted as Colonel and the date of retirement was to be extended. But the applicant was retired in the rank of Lt. Col. (TS) which is a junior rank than rank of Lt. Col(S). The case of the applicant in substance is based on a Gazette Notification dated 18.04.1987, filed as Annexure A-1 to the petition. The relevant portion for the purposes of the present case is reproduced below:--

    Majors to be substantive Lt. Col. (by Selection)

    T.S. Gill (IC 15201W), AOC, 08th Apr' 1983

    S.K. Johri (IC 14277K), INF, 31st Jul 1984

    Mujibulla Khan (IC 16758P), EME, 25th Dec 1984.

    A.K. Thakur (IC 20817N), ARTY, 1st Jan 1987 but with seniority from 15 Jul 1986 without effect on pay and pension.

    Amrik Singh (IC 21913P), ARTY, 14th Oct 1986.

    Lt Col. A KUNZRU
    Assistant Military Secretary

  3. The case of the respondents in brief is that as per the records available, the applicant was never empanelled to the rank of Lt. Col. (Selection) by No. 4 Selection Board. He, at the time of retirement was holding the rank of Lt. Col. (TS), which is evident from Annexure R-1 i.e. PARAMOUNT CARD. The applicant was considered thrice as per the prescribed procedure for grant of rank of Lt. Col. (Selection) by the No. 4 Selection Board but he was not found fit by the No. 4 Selection Board. With regard to the Gazette Notification relied upon by the applicant in support of his case, the respondents have come out that it was a case of an erroneous mistake and as soon as the mistake was detected, a corrigendum Gazette Notification was issued rectifying the mistake. In brief, the case of the respondents is that the applicant was never awarded the rank of Lt. Col. (Selection) and he was holding the rank of Lt. Col. (TS) and retired as such in that rank.

  4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant should have been made to retire in the rank of Lt. Col. (Selection) as per the aforesaid Gazette Notification. Any subsequent amendment in the said Gazette Notification is illegal and uncalled for. The corrigendum notification issued on 30.09.2014 is invalid, ultra-vires and cannot be relied upon as it amounts to amendment in the service rules of the applicant with retrospective effect. Reliance has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT