Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2021) 07 AFT CK 0018

Ex Rect/GD Anit Kumar vs Union of India & Ors

Armed Forces Tribunal · Decided on 19 July 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajendra Menon, Chairperson (J) · P.M. Hariz, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
OA (Appeal) 402 Of 2021 WITH MA 483 AND 981 Of 2021 & OA (Appeal) 402 Of 2021 With MA 483, 981 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 273 words

Invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 ( for short ‘the Act’), the appellant has filed

this Appeal along with an application (MA 483/2021) for condonation of 1996 days delay in filing this Appeal.

When the matter came up for hearing on 5th March, 2021, on the respondents taking an objection to the effect that applicant has not given any reason

as to why the inordinate delay be condoned; the appellant sought and was granted four weeks time to file an additional application giving cogent

reason for condoning the delay.

In view of the orders passed on 5th March, 2021, the appellant has now filed another application (MA 981/2021) seeking condonation of delay.

On perusal of this application, we find that no cogent or sufficient/reasonable reason has been indicated for condonation of delay, except for saying

that the appellant was not aware of the remedies available to him, no justification has been given for condoning the inordinate delay of 1996 days,

which, to our view, is not a good ground to condone the delay. The appellant was proceeded against and was dismissed from service on 13th May,

2015. He kept quiet over the matter for all these years. That being so, we see no reason to condone the delay in filing this Appeal under Section 15 of

the Act, beyond the statutory period of limitation provided under Section 22 of the Act.

In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. Both the MAs 483 and 981/2021 thus stand dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also

dismissed on the ground of delay.