Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Unnecessary litigation is being burdened both before the AFT as well as before this Court on account of insensitiveness and an attitude for not complying with the Supreme Court’s judgments which have attained finality.”
The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army in 1985 in a fit state of health and mind, however, after 26 years of service he was diagnosed with primary hypertension @30% for life and was subsequently discharged.
Supreme Court reiterated that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court.
The Court said that Government should have been sympathetic to the widow of a deceased soldier who died in harness instead of dragging her to the Court.
The Court pointed out that small excesses like overtaking the vehicle of one’s senior at a railway crossing may be an incident of indiscipline in defense services, but the balance and proportion that needs to be maintained between such an infraction and its punishment will always be at the core of good governance.
‘The Medical Board Proceedings acknowledged that the posting of the army personnel involved severe/exceptional stress and strain’
Despite holding an indefeasible right to become the able recipient of disability pension, there was a financial detriment to the petitioner.
The Court stated that subsequent mentioning of the reasons for appointment of junior ranked officer as Judge Advocate in the appellant’s copy of the convening order, especially after putting signatures by the issuing authority, was unauthorised and impermissible.
“Severance of employer — employee relationship can never be said to be an easy choice, for it not only results in the employee losing his livelihood, but also affects those who depend on him for their survival. And if the employer is the Indian Army, the loss is even greater, since it has the effect of suddenly displacing a soldier from the regimented lifestyle of the military”
“If there is a denial of a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution or there is a jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction”, stated the Supreme Court
AFT held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice while discharging the applicant from service. Further, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums particularly in the matter of recruitment and employment in a sensitive establishment like the Armed Forces.
Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava (Chairperson) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member (A) held
Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): The Division Bench of Justice Devi Prasad Singh (Chairperson) and Air Marshal BBP Sinha, Member (A) heard the
Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Rajiv Sharma and Lok Pal Singh, JJ. allowed a writ petition directing the Central
Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi: Hon’ble Justice Babu Mathew P. Joseph And Lt. Gen. Gautam Moorthy quashed a previous order
Supreme Court: Deciding the question as to the scope of power of Armed Forces Tribunal to hear the appeals arising out of
Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow: The Division Bench comprising of D.P Singh, J and Air Marshal Anil Chopra stating that Constitution is the
Supreme Court: The bench of PC Ghose and Amitava Roy, JJ stayed the implementation of the order of the Armed Force Tribunal,