Array
(
[0] =>
[1] =>
[2] =>
[3] =>
[4] =>
[5] =>
[6] => ..... which the appellant was facing in the unit since he belongs to the state of bihar and he was serving in a gorkha unit where the commonly used language was nepali. the appellant is also aggrieved at the fact that he did not plead guilty during scm, in fact, he was threatened by the co to sign the proceedings on a .....
[7] =>
[8] =>
[9] =>
)
Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The petitioner by this petition has prayed that the impugned order dated 25th June 2009 passed by the Defence Ministers Appellate Committee be set aside and also to set aside the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board held in respect of the applicant pertaining to the attributability aspect. He has further prayed that disability pension be granted with effect from 6th June 1984 along with interest @ 12% p.a. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled on 5th January 1981 as a Sailor in the Indian Navy. During his time of enrolment, he was subjected to proper medical examination and he was found fit in all respects. The petitioner was put through very tough training regimen and he successfully completed the same. On completion of the training he was posted to Naval Ship INS Vijay Durg from 1981 to 1983. Towards the end of his tenure on the ship i.e. in January 1983 he contracted a disease called Grand Mal Seizures due to stress of afloat service. 3. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The petition was originally filed in the Honble High Court on 04.12.2002. It was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal on its formation on 12.11.2009. 2. The petitioner/applicant vide this petition/ application has prayed for calling of records of the case and declaring the appointment of Performance Appraisal Review Board (PARB) dated 08.06.1988 as illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Navy Act, 1957 and Navy Order (Special) 3/90. The applicant has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to reconsider him for promotion w.e.f. May, 2000 on the basis of available confidential report without having been moderated by PARB and promote him if found suitable. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was commissioned in the Indian Navy in July, 1985. The applicant continued to get regular promotion and was promoted as a Lt. Commander in March, 1996. In May, 1996 the applicant was transferred to INS Ratnagiri as a Executive Officer. He wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order dated 6.9.2006, whereby the appellant was held guilty of the offences under Sections 354, 509 of the Indian Penal Code read in conjunction with Navy Act Section 77(2) and Navy Act Section 14 and sentenced to be (i) dismissed from service; (ii) reduced to ranks; and (iii) deprived of third, second and first good conduct batch. Simultaneously, prayer is also made to reinstate him in service to the original rank and with all three GCBs with all consequential benefits. 2. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal has been invoked on the basis of the order passed by the Chief of Naval Staff as part of the cause of action arose here in Delhi. The appellant had been pursuing the remedy for the grant of pensionary benefits, which were denied to him, and, therefore, this appeal is now said to be well within limitation. Several other grounds have also been taken for assailing the decision of the Chief of Naval Staff. 3. At this stage of the admission of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The challenge in this petition is directed against the court martial proceedings conducted from 1.11.1990 to 15.3.1991 whereby the petitioner was held guilty for the offences under Sections 60(a), 54(2), 77(2), 41(2), 48(a) and 74 of the Navy Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty four calendar months, to be dismissed from Naval service and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with a default clause of rigorous imprisonment for six more calendar months. On judicial review, Charge No. 20 was found not to have been established against the appellant and he was exonerated of that charge and the sentence was modified to the term already undergone. The authority even remitted the fine. There remains only the sentence of dismissal from service. On formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to this Bench for disposal and was treated as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. It is contended that the appellant was no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant has filed O.A 179/2009 in this Tribunal praying that he be examined by Doctors at R and R Hospital, Delhi Cantt to ascertain his medical status with regard to colour blindness. The applicant has also prayed that invaliding medical board held by the Navy on 19/06/2007 (Annexure A-1) and order dated 30/10/2009 (Annexure -2) rejecting his representation dated 04/09/2009 be quashed. 2. The applicant states that he qualified for recruitment in the Indian Navy including medical exam held on 09/11/2005. In the medical exam his eye sight was graded colour perception II. No colour blindness was detected. Between the period 02/02/2006 to 23/07/2006 the applicant was posted to INS, Chika for basic training. He states that during his medical exam no colour blindness was detected. Subsequently the applicant was posted to INS, Venduruthy, Kochi on 01/11/2006 where the coloured flags were used for training. The applicant avers that no colour blindness was ever detected. 3. The appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Present case received on transfer from Honble Delhi High Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is true that Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ajay Wahi (Civil Appeal No. 1002 of 2006) has held in view of the provision that a person who voluntarily retires from service is not entitled to disability pension. But subsequently, the Government has issued a Notification dated 29th September, 2009 for implementation of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission which reads as under :- 29.09.2009 To The Chief of the Army Staff The Chief of the Naval Staff, The Chief of the Air Staff, Subject : Implementation of Government decision on the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission Revision of provisions regulating Pensionary Awards relating to disability pension/war injury pension etc. for the Armed Forces Officers and Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) voluntary Retire/discharge on own account of disability on or after 01.01.2006...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... which the appellant was facing in the unit since he belongs to the state of bihar and he was serving in a gorkha unit where the commonly used language was nepali. the appellant is also aggrieved at the fact that he did not plead guilty during scm, in fact, he was threatened by the co to sign the proceedings on a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This application has been brought against the findings and the order of the General Court Martial (GCM) dated 07.04.2007 whereby convicting the accused/applicant for the offences under Section 69 of the Army Act R/w. Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and punishing him for dismissal from service. It is said that the applicant has falsely been roped into this case. There is no evidence worth credence to fix the culpability of the accused/applicant. The work of the firm M/s.Pushpa Engineering Works of which PW2 Sh. Shriram Yadav was the sole Proprietor authorised his son Sh.Suresh Kumar Yadav, PW1 to look after the affairs of the said firm by way of executing the Power of Attorney. The firm defaulted in completing the work as per specifications. Time and again they were warned as is also decipherable from Exh.36, 37, 39 41, 42, 43, 45 and 46. Apart from it, PW1 Sh.Suresh Kumar Yadav was not competent to supervise the work as he was not having engineering qualification. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Both these petitions involves similar question of law, therefore, they are disposed off together by a common order. However, for convenient disposal of both the cases facts given in the case of Commander Vinod Kumar Jha are taken into consideration. 2. Petitioner was a Naval Officer. He joined the NDA in July, 1981 and was commissioned in the Indian Navy on 1.7.1984. During 1984 to 1986, the petitioner underwent Sub. Lt.s courses and further from 1987 to 1995 underwent long Navigation course and held prestigious appointments from time to time. From 2000 to 2003, he served with Director General, NCC at New Delhi and was awarded commendation by the Chief of Naval Staff. From 2003 to October 2005 he served the Naval Headquarters as System Officer and Joint Director (Coord. and Admn.) in Directorate of Naval Operations. It is alleged that on 14.7.2005 at midnight the personnel of Naval Intelligence and Naval Police along with other unidentified persons (IB/CBI) came to his house and ran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. All these cases relate to the personnel subject to the Navy Act. In these cases, common question of law with regard to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal has been raised and so they all are taken together for disposal on the preliminary issue. It was contended on behalf of the Union of India that prior to the enforcement of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 all such matters were filed in High Courts under Writ jurisdiction and there was no opposition from the side of Union of India with regard to entertaining petitions under Article 226. It is now contended that in view of the special provisions contained in the Navy Act, 1957, except for an error of jurisdiction or an order which per se would be perverse, this Tribunal cannot interfere with the finding or orders passed by the Court Martial or the Appropriate authority under the Navy Act. Emphasis has also been laid that the provisions of Section 160 of Navy Act contemplates judicial review which is in the form of appeal wherein all th...
Tag this Judgment!