Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/17849/2005 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17849 of 2005
=========================================================
RAJPUT
BHAVARSINGH TAKHATSINGH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SADHANA SAGAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 20/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. List
has been revised. No one has remained present for petitioner. We have
heard Ms. Vasavdatta M. Bhatt, learned advocate for respondents No.1
to 3.
2. Petitioner
was working as Soldier/Sepoy in the Indian Army and he has been
discharged from the Indian Army.
3. The
Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad has
dismissed OA No. 342 of 2003 with MA No. 510 of 2003 by order dated
7.10.2003 which is extracted below :
“Heard
Mr. C.M. Pawar for the applicant. The applicant, who was working as
Soldier/Sepoy in the Indian Army, I Batalian, Mahar Reiment, has
moved this OA challenging the provisional discharge certificate dated
12.10.1998 passed by the respondents as per the Army Rules. Since the
applicant was working as a regular soldier and he has been awarded
the punishment under the Army Rules, in view of the provisions of
Section 2 of the Act, we have no jurisdiction to entertain and try
this O.A. Section 2 clearly provides that the provisions of this Act
shall not apply to any Member of the Naval, Army and Air Force or any
other armed forces of the Union and as such, we cannot entertain and
try the grievance raised by the applicant in this O.A. Since this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the OA, we direct
the Registry to return the OA to the applicant for presentation to
the proper forum retaining one set for record purpose. OA stands
disposed of with no order as to costs. M.A. Also stands disposed of.
”
4. We
are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Further,
petitioner has prayed for pension and post retiral benefits. We are
of the opinion that since the petitioner has been discharged from the
Indian Army as he was habitual absentee, by way of punishment, he is
not entitled for pension or post retiral benefits. Therefore, in view
of these reasons, this petition devoid of any merits and is
accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(V.M.
Sahai,J.)
(K.S.
Jhaveri,J.)
Vyas
Top