Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others Vs No. 13986820K Ex Hav Girish Chandra and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8859-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1490 of 2025

Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence New Delhi And 3 Others Respondent :- No. 13986820k Ex Hav Girish Chandra And Another

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Tripathi

¶6

Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi J.

¶7

Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.

¶8

Heard Sri Vinay Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioners - Union of India and its officers/authorities.

¶9

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 31.01.2025, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the judgment and order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No. 706 of 2020 whereby the original application filed by the opposite party no. 1 was partly allowed.

¶10

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the opposite party no 1 got enrolled in the Army Medical Corps on 27.08.1993 as a Sepoy. He was promoted to the rank of Nayak and Hawaldar and subsequently was granted financial upgradation to the rank of ACP Naib Subedar on 27.08.2017. He was discharged from service on 31.08.2019 after being in service for 26 years and 04 days.

¶11

The opposite party no. 1 was due for promotion to the rank of regular Naib Subedar on 01.10.2014 and Subedar on 01.10.2016 but although his juniors were promoted, he was not promoted on the ground that the petitioners had given an undertaking on 30.06.2014 expressing his willingness to proceed on foreign assignment, if selected, and he had written in the undertaking that during his tenure of duty abroad, his

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

promotion may be announced due to occurrence of vacancies during the period but in such an eventuality, he would not request for premature repatriation for the purpose of promotion before completing his tenure. Any loss in seniority or promotion that may result would be acceptable to him. Thereafter the opposite party no. 1 was sent to UN mission in Tajikistan with effect from 01.07. 2014 to work in India - Tajikistan Friendship Hospital, from where he returned on 22.10.2016.

¶14

The petitioner’s claim for promotion was rejected as on the date of consideration, he was serving abroad and was not present in India. Therefore, the petitioner was not promoted whereas the persons junior to him were promoted.

¶15

The Tribunal held that the opposite party no.1 had signed adverse career certificate without his willingness. He lost the opportunity of being promoted as upon return from the foreign mission, he had become overage. Thus, promotion was denied to the opposite party no.1 without any fault of his, due to unfair circumstance presented as a fate accompli. In these circumstances, it was unjust on the part of the petitioners in denying promotion to the opposite party no.1.

¶16

The petitioners had filed an application under Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 seeking leave to file an appeal against the order dated 24.11.2021 after a delay of 01 year 04 months 29 days. The application was rejected by the Tribunal by means of an order dated 10.10.2023 by holding that the explanation offered by the petitioners for delay in filing the application seeking leave to file appeal was not sufficient.

¶17

Although, the application seeking leave to file appeal was rejected by the Tribunal by means of an order dated 10.10.2023 on the ground that the same had been filed belatedly, the present writ petition seeking quashing of judgment and order dated 24.11.2021 has been filed on 31.01.2025. It has been stated in the writ petition that the opposite party no.1 has filed an Application No.461 of 2023 for execution of order dated 24.11.2023. On 18.10.2024 the Tribunal passed an order

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

granting four weeks’ time to the petitioners to file a compliance affidavit on payment of additional cost of Rs.20,000/- and it is only thereafter that the petitioners have filed the present petition.

¶20

Apparently, the petitioners have not acted in the present matter with reasonable promptitude. Although, the Tribunal had allowed the original application by means of judgment and order dated 24.11.2021, an application seeking leave under Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act was filed with a delay of 01 year 04 months 29 days. This application was rejected by means of order dated 10.10.2023 on the ground that it had been filed belatedly, yet the petitioners did not choose to file writ petition promptly. The writ petition has been filed only after the Armed Forces Tribunal passed orders for execution of order dated 24.11.2021 and repetitively imposed costs on the petitioners and when additional cost of Rs.20,000/- was imposed on them.

¶21

This conduct of the petitioners indicates that they are guilty of latches in dealing with the present matter and no satisfactory explanation has been offered for the delay in filing the writ petition.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage on the ground of latches.

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)

¶24

Order Date: 05.02.2025 kanhaiya

¶25

Page 3 of 3

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others v. No. 13986820K Ex Hav Girish Chandra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others v. No. 13986820K Ex Hav Girish Chandra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anup Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Medical Education Training U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Pramod Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 5 Others

Jai Prakash Chand and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

M/S Hma Agro Industries Ltd. Thru Authorized Representative Prashant Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change Lko and Ors.

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and Another vs Pt.Ram Charitra Mishra Mahavidyalaya Shksha Sansthan Thru.Manager Sharavan Kr. Mishra and 8 Others

Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam Technical University Thru. Registrar and Another vs Dr. Mahalwar Educational Trust Thru. Auth. Sign. Sri Arvind Pal Singh and 2 Others