O.A. No. 161 of 2015. Case: Krishna Hari C. Vs Union of India and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. No. 161 of 2015
Party NameKrishna Hari C. Vs Union of India and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: V.K. Sathyanathan, Adv. and For Respondents: C.B. Sreekumar, Senior Panel Counsel
JudgesS.S. Satheesachandran, Member (J) and M.P. Muralidharan, Vice Admiral, AVSM and BAR, NM and Member (A)
IssueDefence
Judgement DateJanuary 24, 2017
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal

Order:

M.P. Muralidharan, Vice Admiral, AVSM and BAR, NM and Member (A), (Regional Bench, Kochi)

  1. This Original Application has been filed by Krishna Hari C, No. 14476702W, Ex Naib Subedar seeking reinstatement in service and promotion to the rank of Subedar with consequential benefits.

  2. The applicant had earlier filed W.P. No. 16482 of 2003 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging his discharge from the Army, seeking reinstatement in service and promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar. The Writ Petition, on establishment of Armed Forces Tribunal, was transferred to the Regional Bench of this Tribunal at Lucknow and subsequently to this Bench and re-numbered as T.A. No. 16 of 2011. The Transferred Application had been disposed of vide orders dated 22 January 2013 (Annexure A1), wherein the applicant's discharge order was quashed and the applicant was directed to be treated in service till the date of his discharge in normal course with consequential benefits. The applicant had subsequently filed a series of Miscellaneous Applications for implementation of the orders. This Tribunal vide orders dated 26 May 2015 in M.A. No. 501 of 2013, directed the respondents to pass a speaking order on the claim of the applicant for promotion (Annexure A3(a)) and accordingly speaking order dated 18 July 2015 (Annexure A4) was issued by the respondents. The applicant has essentially challenged the speaking order in the instant Original Application.

  3. Sri V.K. Sathyanathan, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 23 December 1981 and in due course was promoted to the rank of Havildar on 01 April 1988. In the year 2001 the applicant was placed in low medical category due to 'Central Serous Retinopathy (Right Eye) with High Myopic Astigmatism'. Even though the applicant had expressed his willingness to continue in service despite being in low medical category, he was discharged from service with effect from 30 November 2002.

  4. The learned counsel submitted that the applicant who was due to be promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar on the next date, i.e. 01 December 2002, therefore challenged his discharge order in the Hon'ble High Court of Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad, which was eventually transferred to the Kochi Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (T.A. No. 16 of 2011). This Tribunal had quashed the discharge order and the respondents were directed to treat the applicant in service till his discharge in normal course on fulfillment of tenure or extended tenure with all consequential benefits including backwages, promotion and other benefits (Annexure A1).

  5. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents initially, partially complied with the order and based on subsequent directives by this Tribunal, a speaking order was issued by the respondents (Annexure A4). The applicant who was promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar based on orders of this Tribunal, was eligible to continue in service upto 31 December 2009 i.e. 28 years of service. He was also to be considered for promotion to the rank of Subedar and subsequent...

To continue reading

Request your trial