Petitioner sought directions to be reinstated and salary released after discharge from army service. Court held jurisdiction lies with Armed Forces Tribunal under Section 14 and transferred petition.
Petition was transferred to Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Serial No. 07
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
SWP No. 296/2006 (O & M)
(Through Audio Calling)
Rakesh Kumar …Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mrs. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate (Through Audio Call, 9419194583)
v/s
Union of India and others ….Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, ASGI (Through Audio Call, 9419181558)
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE
ORDER
following reliefs:-
“1) to quash letter No. 0112/A dated 26th of December 2004 issued by the Commanding Officer by which Commanding officer has intimated the father of the petitioner that the petitioner has been discharged from service (the order of discharged has never been served on the petitioner), by issuance of writ of certiorari;
ii) to issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement and to allow the petitioner to resume his duties and to perform the duties on the post of Sepoy on which the petitioner was working prior to the issuance of order of discharge and also to pay salary of the post of Sepoy and also to give all the consequential benefits of service to the petitioner and to
2 SWP No. 296/2006
treat the period with effect from the date the petitioner was discharged from service to the date the petitioner joins on duty, by issuance of writ of mandamus;
iii) to issue directions to the respondents retraining them to treat the period with effect from the date of discharge to the date of rejoining of petitioner on duties “break in service” and restraining them to appoint any other person on the post of Sepoy on which the petitioner was working prior to the issuance of order of discharge, by issuance of writ of prohibition:
iv) to issue directions to the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner with effect from October 2004 by issuance of writ of mandamus:
v) to declare letter dated 26.12.2004 and the act of respondents by which the respondents have discharged the petitioner from service, as ultra virus, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and contrary to the provisions of Army Act and Rules and against the provisions of principles of natural justice, by issuance of writ of mandamus: OR iv) to issue any other writ, order or directions which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3 SWP No. 296/2006
by the Registry of this Court to the petitioner and the Tribunal shall issue notice to the petitioner of the date of hearing so fixed.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE
Jammu
11.06.2020 Vijay
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
VIJAY KUMAR 2020.06.17 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Rakesh Kumar
Union of India
RAJESH BINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
