Suresh Kumar Patel vs Union Of India And Others

Vide separate order. OA stands disposed oft

Original records be returned to the respondents against receipt.

MA 525/2019

MA filed by the Respondents raising preliminary objection in respect of jurisdiction of this Tribunal is not allowed.

OA 472/2017

By the instant Application filed under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the applicant has prayed the following reliefs :-

(a) To set aside the Impugned Order dated 20th January 2017 conveyed under DGMS letter dt.08 February 2017, (attached as Annexure Al colly).

(b) To direct the respondents to restore the award of ""SM"" to the applicant as ""Gallantry"" instead of ""Distinguished"" and quash the convening order for

BOO.

(c) To direct the respondents to restore the award of SM ""Galantry"" ab-initio and benefits thereof be granted to the applicant with arrears.

(d) That the Applicant be awarded reasonable cost of the litigation as deemed just by the Hon'ble Court in the facts 86 circumstances of the case.

(e) To pass any such other and/or further order or orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2 (a) The applicant was commissioned in the Army Medical Corps on 12.09.1984. The applicant was posted to 51 Special Action Group (SAG) with

National Security Guard (NSG) in February, 1988. During the period of June-July 1990, a team of the task force was engaged in an encounter in

'Chari Fields' in Chamba Kalan Rariwala Village'. During this operation, the applicant as a member of the task force, displayed courage in rendering

on the spot resuscitation/medical aid to the injured team-mates in the face of intense firing by the militants.

(b) In recognition of his courageous and gallantry act as also for exceptional devotion to duty, the applicant was recommended by his Sqn Cdr for

Shauraya Chakra"". However, the applicant was awarded ""Sena Medal"" on the occasion of Republic Day on 26.01.1992. In fact, there is an affidavit

dated 21.3.2017 filed by Col KS Kharb (Retd) (who was the Squadron Commander of the applicant during the C.I.Ops) in support of the applicant's

role in the said operation (annexed as Annexure A5 to the OA).

(c) It is pertinent to point out here that prior to 26.1.1999, there was no distinction in the status of Sena Medal between ""Gallantry and ""Distinguished

Service"". However, commencing Republic Day of 1999, Government of India granted monetary allowance to medals awarded for gallantry action.

Also, there was a direction from Govt. of India to review the Sena Medals awarded prior to 26.1.1999 for Gallantry/Distinguished Service so as to

extend the monetary benefit to Sena Medals classified as ""Gallantry Medal"". Accordingly, in the year 2000, a Board of Officers (-BOO') was set up

to categorize the Sena Medal awardedpriorto 26.1.1999 intotwo categories i.e. ""Gallantry"" and ""Distinguished Service"".

(d) Vide communication dated 10.04.2013, by the Military Secretary Branch, it was communicated to the applicant that the Sena Medal conferred on

the applicant in 1992 was categorized as ""Distinguished"" rather than ""Gallantry"". A copy of the said communication is attached as Annexure 'A3' to

the OA.

(e) Being aggrieved by such a categorization of his award of Sena Medal as ""Distinguished"", the applicant submitted a Statutory Complaint dated

08.11.1014, which was rejected by the Ministry of Defence vide their order dated 20.01.2017 duly communicated to the applicant by the Director

General of Medical Sciences vide letter dated 08.02.2017 (attached at Annexure Al to the OA), being the impugned order herein. As a result, the

applicant has approached the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking relief vide this O.A. (472/2017).

Hearing:

The learned counsel for the applicant argued that when the applicant was awarded Sena Medal in 1992 for his courage and exceptional devotion to

duty, it was only considered as Gallantry. At the relevant time, there was no distinction of the Sena Medal as ""Gallantry"" or ""Distinguished Service

The subsequent re-categorization of the award of 'Sena Medal' into two categories - ""Distinguished Service' and 'Gallantry' by the Board of Officers

is illegal, bad in law and to be declared void abinitio. The learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 20th

January, 2017 rejecting the Statutory Complaint of the applicant be quashed and set aside.

The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that due to the aforesaid re-categorization of the Sena Medal awarded to him, the

applicant's future promotion and monetary benefit were also affected.

Reply Statement was filed on behalf of the Respondents denying the averments in the OA and raising preliminary objections, inter alia, on the

ground that the instant OA has been filed seeking re-classification of award of Sena Medical (Distinguished) to Sena Medal Gallantry) based on the

citation and also to grant consequential monetary benefits.

It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the present OA is not maintainable as the same does not fall within the meaning

of Section 3(o) ""service matters"" in relation to person subject to Army Act, 1950. He submitted that the grievance of the applicant cannot be

adjudicated upon by the Tribunal as the matters pertaining to Honours and Awards have been excluded from the jurisdiction of the AV['.

The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that on 18.3.1999, Government of India, MoD issued a Notification by which it was

communicated that certain allowance attached to gallantry awards will be granted. It was also decided to grant monetary allowance of Rs.250/- to

Sena/Nau Sena/Vayu Sena awardees (where the awards have been given for gallantry). This will be payable to those who have been given these

awards on 26.01.1999 or thereafter. The learned counsel also submitted that as per this, the applicant in any case was not eligible for any benefit since

the applicant had been awarded the award prior to 26.01.1999.

The learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that a case was taken up by three Service HQs with the Ministry for extending the

benefit to pre- 26.01.1999 awardees also. On 17.09.1999, a decision was taken as regards the Army on extending the monetary allowance only to

Sena Medal awardees, where the award was given for gallantry. The exercise was undertaken for segregation of pre-26.1.1999 awardees of Sena

Medal into 'Galantry"" and 'Devotion to Duty'.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents further submitted that after issuance of the orders for granting monetary benefits for Sena Medal

(Gallantry) with effect from 26.1.1999, the Government also agreed to extend the benefit to pre-26.1.1999 Sena Medal award winners. Accordingly,

the categorization of the Sena Medal into ""Gallantry"" and ""Distinguished Service"" was undertaken based on individual citations. The said categorization

was done after deliberate exercise carried out by the Reviewing Committee. The Committee clarified the applicant's Sena Medal as SM

(Distinguished Service). Therefore, the applicant's claim for monetary allowance has been rejected. The learned counsel for the Respondents also

submitted that the O.A. may be dismissed as it lacks merit.

The learned counsel for the Respondents relied upon the following Orders passed by the Honble Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench :

(a) Order dated 26.4.2012 in the case of Maj. B.S.Kohli, SM (Retd) vs. Union of India & Ors.

(h) Order dated 8.9.2014 in the case of Col AK Singh vs. Union of India.

(c) Order dated 09.9.2015 in the case of Lt Col Daman Seigell, SM (Retd) vs. Union of India & Ors.

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the relevant records placed before us.

Consideration by the Tribunal:

We perused the documents submitted by the Respondents (Army Headquarters). The genesis of the subject matter of classifying the pre-

26.1.1999 Sena Medals into ""Gallantry"" and ""Distinguished Service"" could be understood from the notings on the file.A few relevant notings have been

captured and cited in the succeeding four paragraphs.

Note 1

Reference End 10A (PUG) on Linked Filwe-2.

xxxx

The chronological events since the institution of Sena Medal in the year 1960 are as under :-

(a) Citation-

(i) The Citations in respectofthe awardees indicated the act, however, the summary recommendation in the citation indicated both gallantry

and devotion to duty. (Copy of such citations placed at End 38-A/ B).

(ii) With effect from RD-1995 the citations while indicating the act, also specified in the summary of recommendations that the award

recommended is either for an act of 'Gallantry' or 'Distinguished Service'. Thus the citations were categorized (Copy of such citations

placed at End 39-A/ B).

(b) Gazette Notification -

(i) From the year of institution of the award, the citations were published in the Gazette Notification. However, this was discontinued we.f

RD-81 and only the list of awardees was published.

(ii) In 1995 though the citations indicated the award for the act of 'Gallantry' or 'Distinguished service', however, no separate gazette

notification was being issued categorizing the award.

(iii) From Jan 1998 onwards the publication of the gazette for SM was birfurcated as 'Gallantry"" and 'Distinguished Service'

Orders for monetary benefit for Sena Meal (Gallantry) award winners was introduced by the Gout for implementation w.e.f. 26 Jan 1999.

Subsequently, it was decided to extend the benefit to past cases also. Thus, there was a need to categorized the past cases of SM awardees

into 'Gallantry' and 'Distinguished Service'. For this purpose a Committee was constituted which had reviewed approximately 2600 citations

and categorized them as 'Gallantry' or 'Distinguished Service'. As decided, presently we are issuing certificates on a case to case basis, as

per category marked by the Committee in the list placed in the linked folder as well as on verification from respective citations.

While examining the individual requests for issue of certificates in the past, it has been observed that in a number of cases a uniform

yardstick has not been made applicable by the Committee in the categorization as they do not conform to the act defined in the citation. As

in the instant case of Capt Balwinder Singh Kohli, the citation refers to officer's display of courage, devotion to duty, bravery, leadership

and valour in the face of an unruly mob violence involving 500 personnel. (Copy of citation placed at End40-A/ B). The Committee has,

however, categorized the award as 'Distinguished'. Hence, a certificate had been issued by this office, indicating the award as exceptional

devotion to duty.

Some of the anomalies observed in the Committee's categorization of the Sena Medal in respect off ew cases are as under :-

(a) In a sailing expedition, the SM awarded to one member of the team has been classified as 'Gallantry' by the Committee and in the case of

another member as 'Distinguished'. (Copy of such citations placed at End l 41-A/ E)

(b) For similar act i.e. sailing expedition in respect of same individual, on one occasion the Committee has classified the award as

'Distinguished' and in another case as 'Gallantry'. Sailing, expedition, mountaineering etc fall in the category of adventure sports, as such,

these acts should be classified as 'Distinguished' and not as 'Gallantry (Copy of such citation placed at End 42-A/ D)

(c) In some cases the Committee has not indicated any classification. (Capt Jagdish Singh Puri -1 No. 1354/ 82-LI File-1).

Many such anomalous decisions by the Committee in categorizing past cases of SM awardees are likely to emerge as and when requests

are received from the awardees for issue of certificate. Moreover, the Committee's classification as per the linked folder is not

authenticated. Though in general the classification by the Committee may be in order, however, in respect of cases where distinct anomaly is

noted, it is considered that it would be appropriate to review the categorization with the approval of the MS. Accordingly, it is proposed that

all future requests received for issue of certificates be examined in relation to the citation and certificates be issued confirming to the act

including revision of the classification by the Committee, were required.

In view of the above, it is suggested that the categorization by the Committee in the case of IC - 35906 Capt BS Kohli, Dogra be

recategorized as 'Gallantry' as the act for which award has been recommended relates to an act f gallantry in the face of violent mob of 500

personnel. For a somewhat similar action the Committee had classified the act as 'Gallantry' (SiNo. 1359/82 - L/ File - 1; Citation placed at

End 43-A).

For approval please.

Sd/-

(Hemant Kumar)

Dy Dir/ MS (X)

08 Mar 2010

Note 2

Reference End. 1-A.

The issue stems from the demand by the pre 1994 awardees of Sena Medal for treating their awards as 'gallantry' as there was no

division prior to 1994 even though a large number of these awards were given for actual acts of gallantry in the face of the enemy during

operations in 1962, 1965, 1971 and the IPKF operations. The issue was discussed by

the PPOs who decided that the most practical method is to permit issue of suitable certzficates to the awardees endorsing a particular award

as 'gallantry' or 'devotion to duty' on receipt of a formal application from the recipient. The option of change in the Gazette Notification was

considered impractical due to the large number involved. In the suggested scheme, QMG/ COP/ AOP would consider the formal applications

received alongwith the citations/ records held in the service HQ and endorse the SM/ NM/ VM award. There are no financial implications

on the State Gouts and the proposal merely stems from a justifiable request from erstwhile winners of the award for segregation of their

gallant acts.

Sena Medal is a Presidential award conferred on personnel of the Army for 'such individual acts of exceptional devotion to duty or

courage as have special significance for the Army.' The Medal has been instituted vide President's Sectt Notification No. 16-Pres/ 60 dated

26 January 1960 and has been deemed to have taken effect from that date. A copy of the ordinance is enclosed.

Since ID 1995 onwards the award of Sena Medal has been segregated as ""Gallantry"" and ""Devotion to Duty"" by Min of Def/ D(Cer) of

their own without any corresponding change in the Presidential Notification to that effect.

It is incorrect to state that the proposal does not have any financial implications. Many State Gouts are extending monetary/ other

assistance to only gallantry award winners. Further Railways/ National Airlines also give out passes to only winners of gallantry awards.

In this connection it is stated that the citations for Sena Medal do not get published in the Gazette; only the list of awardees gets

published. From 1960 to 1993 about 2616 personnel have been awarded Sena Medal. The yea rwise breakup is placed opposite. All

citations in respect of the Sena Medal awardees are not readily available. The citations are particularly not available in respect of the

personnel who were awarded SM during the 1962, 1965 and 1971 Wars when the awards were given only on the basis of the lists

forwarded by the Command(s). To endorse an award as gallantry on receipt of a request from a particular individual would not be fair as

other awardees who do not approach would be put to a distinct loss. The reasons for their not approaching the Service HQ could be varied,

ignorance being primary. Besides, I cases where the citations are not available, such personnel would be put to a distinct loss. 7. It is,

therefore, felt that as the act performed by an individual is worthy of grant of a Presidential award in the form of a Sena Medal which

ostensibly was given for a gallantry act (as the award of VSM is clearly in recognition of distinguished service), we may consider all

awardees of Sena Medal from 1960 to 1995 as gallantry award winners, giving benefit of doubt to the awardees as the amount of financial

implication is not likely to be enormous.

Submitted please.

Note 3

1 Reference End-11A and Note 6 ante.

Ministry of Defence/ D(Cers) has desired to know the present status of the cases relating to treatment of pre 1994 SM for acts of

gallantry cases given as gallantry awards.

As per the discussion arrived in a meeting held in the office of the JS(G) on 07 Sep 99, the following actions have so far been completed.

(a) All the old records pertaining to Honours & Awards have been removed from the basement of South Block and have been kept

systematically in a separate room in Kashmir House (Rom No 48A in E-in-C's Branch).

(b) A complete list of all SM awardees since 1960, the year of its institution has been drawn up. The list is placed in LI F. All the pre-1994

cases have been arranged in order. The relevant citations of the awardees have also been linked with the names of the awardees till 1985.

The citations for the remaining years are also being traced and linked with the names of the awardees for perusal.

(c) It has been found that in a number of cases citations of the awardees are not available. It is probable that the award was conferred

based on signal message/ other documents especially during the war periods. We may therefore have to take a view in such cases.

It has been suggested by AG's Branch vide End 12-A as also Min of def vide End 11-A that a committee be constituted by the three

Services at a fairly senior level so as to work out the details after going through the records.

In view of this, we may request MS-9 to constitute a committee as directed by the MS vide Note 6 ante. We may associate a rep of AG/ CW-

1 in the exercise, agreed. The following composition of the Board is suggested:-

Chairman Addl MS (A)/ (B)

Members - Dy MS(X)

Col MS-9

Rep from AG/ CW

DAMS(X)

Since all the records have been kept in Kashmir House, the Committee may have to sit in Kashmir House on a regular basis for some time.

Sd/ -

(RB Asthana)

SCSO/ MS(X)

19 Jan 2000

Note 4

1.Reference preceding notes.

The cases where citations were not available have again been reviewed in light of following sources as discussed :-

(a) Available Gazette Notifications.

(b) Annotations made in Honours and Awards Register/ Award Lists (maintained by us) with regard to action.

Out of 107 cases where citations were not available, we have now been able to determine nature of qualifying act in 104 cases with the

help of above mentioned sources. Out of remaining 13 cases, where no information about nature of qualifying acts is available, 9 have

been given on 22 January 1988, which suggests that they might have been given for acts of gallantry (in course of OP Pawan) as they were

announced four days prior to Republic Day 1988. Since only 4 cases are left, they may also be considered as gallantry cases giving the

benefit of doubt.

A revised summary of Pre-1995 cases is placed opposite for perusal.

Submitted please.

Sd/ -

(RB Asthana)

SCSO/ AMS(X)

10 Mar 2000

While perusing the records pertaining to this case submitted by the Respondents, we observed that prior to 1994, there was no specific mention in

the format of the citation as to indicate whether the Sena Medal was awarded for gallantry or distinguished service. However, from 26.1.1995

onwards, the revised format of the citation indicated whether the medal was awarded for gallantry or distinguished service.

Having approved the grant of monetary allowance for Sena Medal (Gallantry) w.e.f. 26.1.1999, the Respondents (Government of India) have

agreed to extend the allowance also to pre-1999 Sena Medals awarded for gallantry action. Between 26.1.1995 and 26.1.1999, the citations contained

the information whether the Sena Medal was awarded for gallantry or distinguished service, which made the task of classification easier for the post -

26.1.1995 Sena Medals towards grant of monetary allowance. There was, however, difficulty in identifying the pre-1994 Sena Medals as to whether

awarded for gallantry or distinguished service. Accordingly, the Respondents (Army Headqarters) formed a Committee to classify the pre-1994 Sena

Medals into gallantry or distinguished service. The Committee scrutinized all the Sena Medal citations and submit its recommendations for their

classification.

The details indicating total number of pre -1995 Sena Medal awardees and their bifurcation into SM(G) and SM(D) as submitted by the

Respondents are given below :-

(i) Total number of pre-1995 cases - 2596.

(ii) Total number of SM (G) awarded -2167.

(iii) Total number of Devotion to Duty - 322

(iv) Citations not available being old and untraceable - 107

Out of the above 107 cases where citations were not available, we observed that the qualifying acts in 104 cases were identified with the help of

annotations made in Honours and Awards Register/Award Lists maintained by the Respondents. Out of remaining 13 cases, where no information

about nature of qualifying acts was available, 9 were classified as Sena Medal (Gallantry) presuming as gallantry award for personnel participated in

Op Pawan (Sri Lanka Ops) as the medals were awarded four days prior to the Republic Day of 1988. It is also noted from records that the remaining

4 cases were also recommended to be classified as Sena Medal (Gallantry), giving the benefit of doubt. As a result, it can be presumed that in the

classification process of pre-1995 Sena Medals, the Classification Committee did exercise certain amount of discretion in its recommendations.

It is a fact that the applicant is an Army Officer commissioned in the Army Medical Corps in 1984. In 1990, the applicant, as a member of NSG

Special Action Group, participated in an encounter during CI operations. For the bravery and devotion to duty displayed by the applicant in the

operation, he was awarded Sena Medal on 26.1.1992, though he had been recommended for even a higher award, namely, Shaurya Chakra. Thus, the

applicant's award of Sena Medal falls into the pre -1994 Sena Medal category, where it was not specifically mentioned in the citation whether the

medal was awarded for gallantry or for distinguished service.

The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Classification Committee appointed to classify the pre-1994 Sena Medals was headed by a

Major General only, whereas the Honours 86 Awards Committee awarding the medals was headed by the Vice Chief of the Army Staff. However,

we noted that though the Classification Committee was headed by a Major General, its recommendations were scrutinized at the level of the Military

Secretary at Army Headquarters and then approved by the Ministry of Defence.

We also noted in para 20 above, proposal to classify all pre-1994 Sena Medals as 'gallantry'. As stated in para 20 above, we further observed that

at least 107 pre-1994 Sena Medals were classified as 'Gallantry Medal' by the Classification Committee even though their citations could not be

located in the archives and then the classification approved by the Competent Authority. Therefore, the argument contained in the file notings that all

pre-1994 Sena Medals to be classified as gallantry medal has got some force and thereby the applicant's prayer in this O.A.

However, the learned counsel for the Respondents during his argument before the Tribunal, placed reliance upon the order dated 26.4.2012 passed

by this Tribunal in the case of Maj. B.S.Kohli, SM (Retd) vs. Union of India & Ors. In this relied case, the petitioner prayed for modification of his

award of Sena Medal (Distinguished Service) to that of Sena Medal (Gallantry) in view of admitted act of bravery. The petitioner was commissioned

in the Indian Army and served in Arunachal Pradesh as a Column Commander in ""OP HARARE"" against Nagaland insurgents. The said citation

detailed the various acts of bravery displayed by the petitioner. He was recommended for ""Shaurya Chakra"" by his Commander but awarded Sena

Medal. It has been pointed out that recently the Army HQ had made a distinction of Sena Medal (Gallantry) and Sena Medal (Distinguished Service).

After the amendment of policy, the case of one Sepoy Balwinder Singh, who was awarded Sena Medal, was reviewed by the competent authority,

and subsequently classified as Sena Medal (Gallantry); whereas, petitioner's case for classifying his medal as Sena Medal (Gallantry), who performed

the same bravery act, was rejected by the authority. Thus, a case of discrimination has been alleged which given rise to the petitioner's grievance that

he and the Sepoy Balwinder Singh performed the same acts of bravery, petitioner being the leader of the patrol team; but, despite that his case for

classification as SM (Gallantry) has been rejected. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that this Tribunal observed that ""Grant or not to

grant awards is the privilege of the Government as they are better advised and well versed on the subject, therefore, they are the competent authority

to do this exercise. This cannot be subject matter of an appeal before the Court"" and remitted the case to the Respondents to reconsider the case of

the petitioner for grant of Sena Medal (Gallantry). The learned counsel for the Respondents, therefore, prayed that the instant O.A. is not maintainable

on similar grounds. The Para 9 of the said order reads as follows :-

In view of above, we think it just and proper to remit the case back to the authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of

Sena Medal (Gallantry) for a job well done by him and after going through the recommendations of the various Commanders who

recommended the case of the petitioner. We hope and trust that authority will look into the matter expeditiously and do a proper justice in

the matter.

The learned counsel for the Respondents also relied upon the order dated 8.9.2014 passed by a Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Col AK Singh

vs. Union of India and Ors. In relied case, the petitioner prayed for quashing of Confidential Report and also sought directions to the Respondents to

draw a fresh merit list as on January 2012 as alsodirections to have a fresh look on conferment of COAS's Unit Citation and Individual Citation. The

Bench opined that the matter pertaining to Unit Citation or the Individual Citation does not fall within the definition of ""Service Matters"" as given in

Section 3(o) of the Act. The learned counsel for the Respondents further highlighted that in para 7 of the said Order, which makes the present case as

unsustainable. The para 7 of the said Order reads as follows In such a situation, we are not required to consider the merits of the allegations as to bias

operating in the minds of respondent No.4 and 5, while assessing the petitioner's performance for the period covered by the impugned ECR. Further,

as pointed out already, it is not possible to grant any relief in the matter of conferment of the Unit Citation or the Individual Citation.

The learned counsel for the Respondents further relied upon the order dated 9.9.2015 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Lt Col Daman Seigell,

SM (Retd) vs. UoI 86 Ors. and prayed that the present O.A. is not maintainable on similar grounds. In this relied case, the petitioner prayed for a

declaration to classify Sena Medal awarded to the petitioner as Sena Medal Gallantry and also grant of consequential reliefs. The learned counsel for

the Respondentshighlightedthatthis Tribunal,while disposing of the above case, observed the settled position in the case of Major BS Kohli (supra) in its

order dated 9.9.2015 as follows :-

In an earlier case of Major BS Kohli (OA No.376/2011 decided on 26.04.2012 Bench headed by the then Chairperson, Hon 'ble

Mr.Justice A.K. Mathur, had also refused to entertain such a grievance. For a ready reference, the relevant observations may be

reproduced as under:

We do not propose to go into this question as it is the privilege of the Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. But the fact remains

that bravery act shown by the petitioner has not been recognized by the Selection Committee. On the other hand, bravery displayed by

Sepoy Balwinder Singh in the same incident has been recognized by the Selection Committee and he has been granted Sena Medal

(Gallantry).

In view of above, we think it just and proper to remit the case back to the authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of Sena

Medal (Gallantry) for a job well done by him and after going through the recommendations of the various Commanders who recommended

the case of the petitioner. We hope and trust that authority will look into the matter expeditiously and do a proper justice in the matter.

Thus, from the orders of this Tribunal in the above three different cases, it becomes clear that the decision to grant -ga11antry7 -distinguished

service' awards to Armed Forces personnel is in the domain of the Government. Hence, any relief for the prayer of the applicant in the present O.A.

with regard to the process of classification of the award of Sena Medal into two categories ""Distinguished"" and ""Gallantry""orawardingofSM

(Gallantry) to the applicant has to be decided by the Government/Respondents.

Conclusion:

After taking into consideration the facts of this case, the contents in relevant records placed before us, the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for both the parties and the relevant case laws, we think that it is just and proper to remit the instant O.A. back to the Respondents to

reconsider the case for classification of applicant's pre-1994 Sena Medal under the revised Policy. We hope and trust that the Respondents would

accord a fair consideration to the case and intimate their decision to the applicant. The Respondents are also directed to issue a 'Speaking Order' to

the applicant within 8 weeks from today, in the event of not granting the relief as prayed for by the applicant in this O.A.

The OA is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.