Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

O.A. No. 41 of 2010. Case: BVR Reddy, Ex-Sepoy Vs Union of India (UOI) represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Officer In-Charge Records, Sena Seva Corps Abilekh. Armed Forces Tribunal

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberO.A. No. 41 of 2010
Party NameBVR Reddy, Ex-Sepoy Vs Union of India (UOI) represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Officer In-Charge Records, Sena Seva Corps Abilekh
JudgesA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan (J) and S. Pattabhiraman (A), Members
IssueDefence Law
Judgement DateApril 04, 2011
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal

Order:

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, Member (J), (Regional Bench, Chennai)

  1. Challenging the order of discharge, consequently claiming pension, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.

  2. According to the applicant, he was enrolled in the Army as a Sepoy/Driver on 04.11.1980. He had served in various stations including peace as well as field areas. He was also awarded Long service Medal after the completion of 9 long years after meritorious army service. Due to family circumstances, on more than one occasion he could not report back to duty in time after availing leave. He was discharged from service on the ground of being undesirable / inefficient / service no longer required on 31.05.1995, by incompetent authority after completion of 14 years 6 months and 28 days of Army Service. Prior to the discharge from service, the applicant was assessed by the Army authorities as his work has been very good and his general conduct was exemplary. The applicant was discharged under Rule 13(3)(III)(v) of the Army Rules 1954, by an incompetent authority and also not following the Rules. The applicant had already put in 14 years 6 months and 28 days of service, but the pension able service for the applicant is 15 years. As per the v. Central Pay Commission, the Pension Rule has been amended. Hence, challenging the impugned order of discharge and also for the consequential relief of pension, the applicant has come forward with this application.

  3. In the reply statement/counter the Respondents jointly would contend that the applicant was discharged from service under Rule 13(3) (III)(v) of the Army Rules 1954 because during his service he was awarded the following punishments on nine different occasions, which have earned him 7 red ink entries and 2 black ink entries_

    (a) 14 days Rigorous Imprisonment in military custody on 4th September 1989 for an offence under Army Act Section 39(b) ie., over staying of leave.

    (b) 21 days Rigorous Imprisonment in military custody on 20th June 1990 for an offence under Army Act 63, ie., Violation of good order and military 'custody' (to be read as discipline).

    (c) One day pay fine on 19th January 1991 for an offence under Army Act Section 39(b) ie., Over Staying of Leave.

    (d) 14 days Rigorous Imprisonment in military custody on 15h May 1993 for an offence under Army Act 39(b) ie., Over Staying of Leave.

    (e) 28 days Rigorous Imprisonment in military custody on 23rd December 1993 for an offence under Army Act Section...

To continue reading

Request your trial