1

IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,

WEST BLOCK-8, R. K. PURAM, NEW DELHI

OA No. __________/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

JC 76366A, SUB SURESH KUMAR C (RETD.) …..APPLICANT

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA& OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS

URGENT APPLICATION

To,

The Registrar
Armed Forces Tribunal
Principal Bench,
West Block-8, R. K. Puram,
New Delhi.

Sir,

Kindly treat the accompanying Application under Section 14 of the

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 as urgent matter for listing before the

appropriate bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal on .2018

The grounds of urgency are as prayed for in the Original

Application.

Yours faithfully,

S S PANDEY & ASSOCIATES

Place: New Delhi Advocates
V-5, Green Park Extn,
Dated: .2018 New Delhi-16
Mob: 09968319917
 2
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The Applicant is aggrieved by the most wrongful, arbitrary and

discriminatory actions of the Respondents of issuing a most arbitrary and

unreasonable Special Army instruction as per which the Respondents have

created a serious disparity in the fixation of pay and allowances in the same

Rank in Army. The sole reason for such disparity is non-receipt of the

option within stipulated time of the Applicant for fixation of pay in the

revised pay scale as prescribed by 6th CPC from the date of promotion

after 01.01.2006 instead of fixing the same in the existing Rank as on

09.04.2007.

The Applicant is aggrieved by the wrongful action of the

Respondents of denying him the pay and allowances at par with his

junior/batch mate in the Rank of Naib Subedar and Subedar when they

have been given the same pay scale and are of the same group with

common seniority list. The sole reason for such disparity is non-receipt of

the option within stipulated time of the Applicant for fixation of pay in

the revised pay scale as prescribed by 6 th CPC from the date of promotion

after 01.01.2006 instead of fixing the same in the existing Rank as on

09.04.2007 by default. It is the case of the Applicant that the time limit

of exercise of such option was fixed initially up to 31.03.2011 and later

on vide letter dated 11.12.2013, same was extended up to 30.06.2011

even when the mandate as prescribed in Para 14 was to fix the pay in the

manner which is more beneficial to the affected person.

The Applicant is aggrieved by the action of the Respondents to issue

such instruction by putting the onus on the individuals who are

deployed in far flung areas and hardly have any knowledge of such

instructions and how to further exercise them most beneficially. This

 3
inability has been used to place the juniors at a higher pay scale when

the same is totally unjustified and illegal in public service. This action

of the Respondents is contrary to frame work of the policy which clearly

provides that pay must be fixed to ensure that the individual is given the

option of pay fixation which is more beneficial to him. It is the specific

case of the Applicant that in view of the fact that he was unaware of such

option, thereby unable to exercise his option on time. However, some

junior who have exercised such option though in some cases belatedly

but given the benefit due to intervention of this Hon’ble Tribunal in terms

of the judgment dated 10.12.2014 in OA 113 of 2014 and connected

matters where this Hon’ble Tribunal clearly observed that the approach

of the Respondents to term the option as time barred was not correct and

also observed that the Respondents ought to have extended the benefit

which was more beneficial to the affected individuals and no person

knowingly expected to opt what is disadvantageous to him . This Hon’ble

Tribunal in case of OA 1092 of 2017 vide order dated 05.10.2017 has

extended the benefit of the said judgment even in cases where even no

option was submitted by the individuals by relying upon Para 14 of the

SAI 1/S/2008 by granting pay fixation which was more beneficial and

since in that case same was more beneficial from the date of promotion,

it was extended to him which was subsequently implemented. It is the

case of the Applicant that he is drawing Rs.50,500/- whilst his juniors

are drawing much more which is reflected in the monthly pay slips of the

month December 2017, which is much less than what he is entitled to

and therefore the Applicant is most aggrieved by the actions of the

respondents for not stepping up of pay and allowances of the Applicant

as per his entitlement. It is pertinent to mention that the Applicant has

now retired and he was not only denied the pay and allowances which he
 4
was otherwise entitled in the Rank of Naib Sub and Sub but his all post

retirement benefits were also given to him at a reduced rate including his

pension Hence, the Applicant is left with no option but to approach this

Hon’ble Tribunal seeking urgent directions in the matter. Hence, the

present Application.

LIST OF DATES

19.01.1988 The Applicant was enrolled into the services of Indian

Army on 19.01.1988 after having been found fit in all

respects for such enrolment was promoted time to time

upto the rank of Subedar.

09.04.2007 While the recommendations of the 6 th CPC was yet to be

implemented, the Applicant was promoted to the Rank of

Nb Sub on 09.04.2007.

11.10.2008 The Respondents accepted the Recommendations of the

6th Pay Commission for which Special Army Instruction

was issued on 11.10.2008 w.e.f 01.01.2006 when the

Applicant was a Nb Sub. The said SAI had a provision

for fixation of pay from the date of promotion to all those

persons who were granted promotion after 01.01.2006

based on the option to continue in the pre-revised scale

till the date of next promotion and get the pay fixed from

the date of promotion instead of w.e.f 01.01.2006.

However, this was never notified to the individuals

personally nor they were advised what would be more

beneficial to them and his pay was fixed in the new scale

without carrying this exercise.

 5

2008 to Since the Applicant failed to exercise the option, he was

2011 put by default in new scale w.e.f 01.01.2006 without

making any effort to examine what would be more

beneficial for him by the Respondents to enable the

Applicant and other person getting less pay in the Rank

of Naib Sub and Sub due to putting him in new pay

scale w.e.f 01.01.2006 by default. Due to application of

the wrong policy of fixation, the pay of the Applicant was

fixed at a level much lower than his juniors in Rank of

Naib Sub and Sub who either exercised their option or

were holding the rank of Naib Sub as on 01.01.2006 and

had the Respondents adopted the more beneficial

clause, the Applicant would have got the same benefit.

22.07.2013 The Applicant was thereafter promoted as Sub on

22.07.2013. However, due to wrong fixation of pay, his

pay was fixed much lower than his juniors even in the

Rank of Sub.

27.07.2013 Respondents vide Signal dated 27.07.2013 has

intimated all concerned that the date of exercising

option has been extended till 31.07.2013 in terms of

letter issued by Respondents dated 13.06.2013.

11.12.2013 The Respondents had given time for three months only

for exercise of option which was extended time to time

till 30.06.2011 only in terms of the order dated

11.12.2013. Based on which some of the persons who

got to know of such anomaly and could exercise their

 6
option were not given such benefit as their option was

not received prior to 30.06.2011 but the Applicant was

not even aware of the same even at this stage.

08.07.2016 Despite several orders passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal,

the Respondents have not changed their policy and are

granting benefit selectively only to those persons who get

the order from this Hon’ble Tribunal as evident from

order dated 08.07.2016 passed in case of another JCO

similarly affected in the matter.

05.10.2017 Some of the affected persons who did not exercise any

option also sought the benefit of pay fixation at par with

their junior by invoking the clause of more beneficial

provision and this Hon’ble Tribunal in one of such

matter in OA 1092 of 2017 decided on 05.10.2017 held

the Applicant therein entitled to the said benefit.

.2018 Hence, the Applicant is left with no alternative rather

than taking legal recourse with respect to the anomaly

existing between the pay scales but to approach this

Hon’ble Tribunal. Hence, the present Application.

IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,

WEST BLOCK-8, R. K. PURAM, NEW DELHI
OA No. __________/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

JC 76366A, SUB SURESH KUMAR C (RETD.) …..APPLICANT

VERSUS
 7

UNION OF INDIA& OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS

MEMO OF PARTIES

IN THE MATTER OF:

JC 76366A, SUB SURESH KUMAR C (RETD.)

S/O LATE SHRI SUNKUNNY NAIR,

R/O H. NO. 3/199, DAYA GARDENS,

KONIKKARA, P.O.- THALAVANIKKARA,

OLLUR, THRISUR, KERALA,

PIN CODE-680306

PRESENTLY AT NEW DELHI …..APPLICANT

VERSUS

1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH

THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

DHQ PO, NEW DELHI-110 011

2. THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF, THROUGH

DIRECTOR GENERAL ARMY AIR DEFENCE

INTEGRATED HQ OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY)

DHQ PO, NEW DELHI-110 011

3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL

PERSONNEL SERVICES (PS-3)

INTEGRATED HQ OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY)

DHQ PO, NEW DELHI-110 011

4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE RECORDS

 8
EME RECORDS, SECUNDERABAD,

5. THE CONTROLLER GENERAL DEFENCE ACCOUNTS THROUGH

PAY ACCOUNTS OFFICER (ORs), EME,

SECUNDERABAD-21 ….RESPONDENTS

Filed by:-

Place :New Delhi S S Pandey & Associates

Advocate

Dated : .2018 V-5, Green Park Extn,

New Delhi-16

Mob : 09968319917
 9
IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,
WEST BLOCK-8, R. K. PURAM, NEW DELHI

OA No. __________/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

JC 76366A, SUB SURESH KUMAR C (RETD.) …..APPLICANT

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA& OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007

To,

The Hon’ble Chairperson and his

Companion Members of the Hon’ble

Tribunal at New Delhi

The humble application of the above named Applicant.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. PARTICULARS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AGAINST WHICH

THE APPLICATION IS MADE:

The Applicant is aggrieved by the most wrongful, arbitrary and

discriminatory actions of the Respondents of not fixing the pay of

the Applicant in the Rank of Naib Sub and Subedar after issuance

of the SAI 1/S/2008 on promotion of the Applicant to such Rank

and putting him in revised pay w.ef 01.01.2006 based on his then

existing Rank of Havildar by default on the sole ground that he

failed to exercise the option for pay fixation from the date of his
 10
promotion ignoring the mandate of SAI in terms of Para 14 which

in no uncertain term provided that the more beneficial option of

fixation has to be granted even when there is no option received by

the Respondents. The Applicant is also aggrieved by the wrongful

action of the Respondents of denying him the pay and allowances

in the Rank of Nb Subedar and in the Rank of Subedar which is

much lower than what his juniors are getting thereby violating the

constitutional mandate well established by the judicial

pronouncement that a senior cannot get less pay than his junior

under any circumstances and such obligation in any case cannot

be watered down on the pretext of non-receipt of option within time

which is otherwise antithesis of the constitutional obligation to

ensure equal pay for equal work in same setup amongst same

category of employees which are even junior to the Applicant and

otherwise similarly situated in all respect.

2. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

The Applicant is aggrieved by the wrongful actions and

culpable inactions of the Respondents of applying the SAI in most

mechanical manner, not amending the order dated 11.12.2013 in

tune with the observations made by this Hon’ble Tribunal vide

judgement dated 10.12.2014 in OA 113 of 2014, wherein this

Hon’ble Tribunal has already clarified that firstly no option

exercised till 12.12.2013 can be rejected terming the same as time

barred. Secondly, even in absence of any option it was the

Respondents who were under an obligation in terms of Para 14 of

1/S/2008 to grant the fixation of pay, which is more beneficial to

the individual. The Applicant is also aggrieved by the inaction of the

 11
Respondents located within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Tribunal to process the case of the individuals in whose case the

order has been passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal, instead of issuing

appropriate amendment/ modification in the orders passed by the

Respondents. Hence, cause of action has arisen in Delhi and the

OA is liable to be entertained in Delhi like all other similarly placed

Applicant who have filed the OA before the Hon’ble Tribunal and

got relief. It is further submitted that though as a matter of fact,

keeping in view of the objections of the Respondents in other

matter, as advised the Applicant has filed a Misc. Application

bearing MA No. /2018 for seeking an order on administrative side

for giving a OA No. and listing of the matter before an appropriate

bench. However, the Hon’ble Chairperson has declined to entertain

the Application for the reason that the plea of cause of action

having which in Delhi, which is the base of filing OA needs an

adjudication by an appropriate bench instead of the Hon’ble

Chairperson on administrative side.

3. LIMITATION:

That the Applicant is entitled to such revised salary which accrues

to him daily and therefore, there is continuing cause of action and

hence, the present Application is within the limitation period

prescribed in Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

4. FACTS OF THE CASE:

4.1 The Applicant was enrolled into the services of Indian Army on

19.01.1988 after having been found fit in all respects for such
 12
enrolment was promoted time to time upto the rank of Subedar.

4.2 While the recommendations of the 6th CPC was yet to be

implemented, the Applicant was promoted to the Rank of Nb Sub

on 09.04.2007.

4.3 The Respondents accepted the Recommendations of the 6 th Pay

Commission for which Special Army Instruction was issued on

11.10.2008 w.e.f 01.01.2006 when the Applicant was a Nb Sub.

The said SAI had a provision for fixation of pay from the date of

promotion to all those persons who were granted promotion after

01.01.2006 based on the option to continue in the pre-revised

scale till the date of next promotion and get the pay fixed from

the date of promotion instead of w.e.f 01.01.2006. However, this

was never notified to the individuals personally nor they were

advised what would be more beneficial to them and his pay was

fixed in the new scale without carrying this exercise.

4.4 Since the Applicant failed to exercise the option, he was put by

default in new scale w.e.f 01.01.2006 without making any effort

to examine what would be more beneficial for him by the

Respondents to enable the Applicant and other person getting

less pay in the Rank of Naib Sub and Sub due to putting him in

new pay scale w.e.f 01.01.2006 by default. Due to application of

the wrong policy of fixation, the pay of the Applicant was fixed at

a level much lower than his juniors in Rank of Naib Sub and Sub

who either exercised their option or were holding the rank of

Naib Sub as on 01.01.2006 and had the Respondents adopted

the more beneficial clause, the Applicant would have got the

same benefit.
 13

4.5 The Applicant was thereafter promoted as Sub on 22.07.2013.

However, due to wrong fixation of pay, his pay was fixed much

lower than his juniors even in the Rank of Sub.

4.6 Respondents vide Signal dated 27.07.2013 has intimated all

concerned that the date of exercising option has been extended

till 31.07.2013 in terms of letter issued by Respondents dated

13.06.2013.
4.7 The Respondents had given time for three months only for

exercise of option which was extended time to time till

30.06.2011 only in terms of the order dated 11.12.2013. Based

on which some of the persons who got to know of such anomaly

and could exercise their option were not given such benefit as

their option was not received prior to 30.06.2011 but the

Applicant was not even aware of the same even at this stage.

4.8 Despite several orders passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal, the

Respondents have not changed their policy and are granting

benefit selectively only to those persons who get the order from

this Hon’ble Tribunal as evident from order dated 08.07.2016

passed in case of another JCO similarly affected in the matter.

4.9 Some of the affected persons who did not exercise any option

also sought the benefit of pay fixation at par with their junior by

invoking the clause of more beneficial provision and this Hon’ble

Tribunal in one of such matter in OA 1092 of 2017 decided on

05.10.2017 held the Applicant therein entitled to the said

benefit.

4.10 Hence, the Applicant is left with no alternative rather than taking
 14
legal recourse with respect to the anomaly existing between the

pay scales but to approach this Hon’ble Tribunal. Hence, the

present Application.

5. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF WITH LEGAL PROVISIONS:

A. Because actions of the Respondents of putting the Applicant in

the revised pay scale w.e.f 01.01.2006 ostensibly due to non-

receipt of the option on time from the Applicant ignoring their

legal obligation to grant the pay fixation which is more beneficial

to him and fixing his pay in the manner resulting in

junior/batch mate getting more pay then the Applicant against

the constitutional mandate and not rectifying the same on the

basis of drawing the distinction of receipt of option and non-

receipt of option are highly arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable,

unconstitutional, discriminatory and contrary to all the laid

down instructions on the subject vide SAI 1/S/08.

B. Because it is the case of the Applicant that the Respondents

have created confusion by bringing a stipulation of fixation of

pay based on option in two different manners. As per the first

method, the pay was to be fixed on the existing Rank w.e.f

01.01.2006 by multiplying the pre-revised pay in the pay scale

with a factor of 1.86 in the applicable pay band but it was also

stipulated that in case of promotion granted after 01.01.2006,

the pay can be fixed from the date of promotion for which an

option was required to be exercised. In case of default, the pay

fixation was to be done w.e.f 01.01.2006 in the pre-revised

existing pay which was a fundamental flaw in the policy as they

ought to have followed the mandate of Para 14 of the SAI which

 15
provided that in case of promotion after implementation of the

Pay commission, the pay should be fixed in a manner which is

more beneficial to the individual.

C. Because the Respondents have also committed a grave error by

fixing a date which was extended time to time but only till

30.06.2011 for exercising of option rather than approaching the

affected persons by educating them as to which method of pay

fixation would be more beneficial to them even it may have

resulted in delay in getting revised pay till promotion but at least

this would have avoided situation of such wide spread pay

disparity resulting in violation of the constitutional mandate of

senior not getting pay even equal to the junior if not higher pay

which should be the logical outcome of such fixation.

D. Because in view of the mandate of law instead of putting the

onus on the affected persons, it was the Respondents who were

required to reach out to such persons explaining them what

method of fixation will be more beneficial for them and if despite

that option was not exercised, the Respondents may have

attached some justification though it is the case of the Applicant

that despite non receipt of option a person cannot be placed his

junior in the matter of fixation of pay which would be contrary

to the established legal principle that a junior cannot be given

more pay than his senior and in that condition the option even if

received for want of knowledge to get the benefit from

01.01.2006, same cannot be used to grant lesser pay scale than

junior as there can be no estoppels against the law or the

constitutional mandate.
 16

E. Because the formula for pay fixation applied in respect of

similarly situated persons differently i.e. as on 01.01.2006,

multiplying the existing pay with a fraction of 1.86 but granting

minimum pay in the pay band with one increment after

02.01.2006 thereby resulting in difference of pay not only with

the person with same seniority but even with the juniors when

all such persons are from the same group, having same

qualifications and duties and responsibilities are absolutely

identical is a clear violation of constitutional mandate of equal

pay for equal work.

F. Because the Respondents in a most unfair manner, devised a

formula for obtaining option for deferment of the pay

commission benefit till the date of next promotion for grant of

pay in the pay band as per the grade pay prescribed which is

contrary to constitutional mandate and the same cannot be

justified in any manner as no waiver or estoppels can be applied

to deny the benefits otherwise the Respondents are under an

obligation to confer.

G. Because even otherwise it is pertinent to mention that the

Respondents did not make any proper effort to adequately

inform the affected persons by asking their options specifically

resulting in more than 95 to 97 percent persons getting the

benefits from 01.01.2006 even though the same was not

beneficial for them. It is only few persons who were posted in the

places like the record Offices who came to know about the

availability of the option. Hence, the Applicant also was deprived

of making an informed choice in this regard.

 17

H. Because this Hon’ble Tribunal in case of Sub Chittar Singh and

in case of Sub Dhyan Singh have already held that the pay

fixation should be done in manner which is more beneficial but

the same has not been done in case of the Applicant as he has

not approached this Hon’ble Tribunal and benefit is extended

only to the persons who have obtained a judgment in their favor.

It is evident from the said judgments that asking for option

instead of fixing the pay which is more beneficial was wrong as

it is quite obvious that if someone has not exercised the option

or has exercised a wrong option it has to be a mistake which

requires rectification as no one in normal course will exercise an

option knowingly which may result in loss of pay to him in all

times to come.

I. Because in the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, the

action of the Respondents of denying the Applicant the benefit of

fixation of pay in the 6th pay commission from the date of his

promotion and instead of placing him under the revised pay

scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 resulting in a situation of the Applicant

getting less pay than his junior on the sole basis of inability of

the Applicant to exercise the option on time ignoring the

obligation enjoined upon to fix the pay in the manner as to

ensure that the Applicant is not put to any disadvantage,

resulting in the Applicant getting less pay than his juniors in the

rank of Nb sub and Sub is legally unsustainable and liable to be

set aside and quashed by following the judgment dated

05.10.2017 of this Hon’ble Tribunal in case of Sub Dhyan Singh

in OA 1092 of 2017.
 18

J. Because even in cases where the PBORs have not been able to

exercise option at any point of time the Respondents ought to

have fixed the pay by applying more beneficial method of fixation

of pay according to 6th CPC for the simple reason that no one

knowingly would exercise such an option which will entail less

pay and allowances as compared to his juniors and/ or batch

mates.

6. DETAILS OF THE REMEDIES EXHAUSTED:

The Applicant has been denied the benefit of fixation of pay and

allowances according to the more beneficial option of 6 th CPC

despite various favorable judgments of this Hon’ble Tribunal as

mentioned above. Moreover, the Respondents have already taken a

principled stand that they have granted the benefit to only those

persons who have obtained the order from this Hon’ble Tribunal as

the Respondent No.1 has not issued any order for amendment of

the policy in the light of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble

Tribunal. The Applicant has on various occasions tried to get the

matter resolved verbally, to which he has not received any

satisfactory response, and further requests that the averments

made in this instant application to be considered as a

representation of the Applicant and hence, he is approaching the

Hon’ble Tribunal directly to get his entitled dues, as such this being

a matter related to pay and allowances governed by the respective

policy, the Respondents do not entertain statutory complaint in this

respect despite various favorable Judgments.

7. MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED OR PENDING WITH ANY

OTHER COURT/BENCH OF TRIBUNAL:
 19

The Applicant further declares that he had not previously filed any

Application, Writ Petition or Suit regarding the matter, in respect of

which this Application is made, before any Court or any other

authority or any other Bench of the Tribunal nor any such

Application, Writ Petition or Suit is pending before any of them.

8. RELIEF (S) SOUGHT:

In view of the facts mentioned in Para 4 and 5 above, the Applicant

prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow

the present application with exemplary costs/damages by passing

following orders/directions: -

(a) Call for the records based on which the Respondents No. 1

has taken a decision not to issue amendment in the policy

dated 11.12.2013 in the light of judgement of this Hon’ble

Tribunal dated 10.12.2014 in OA 113 of 2014 and judgment

dated 05.10.2017 in OA 1092 of 2017 by extending the

benefit of pay fixation from the date of promotion instead of

01.01.2006 by applying Para 14 of 1/S/2008 thereby denying

the Applicant his rightful claim of equal pay for equal work for

want of exercise of option by the Applicant and thereafter

quash the same.

(b) Direct the Respondents to extend the benefit of fixation of pay

to the Applicant to ensure the more beneficial fixation of pay

from the date of promotion as Nb Sub in the revised pay scale

 20
in 6th CPC with effect from 09.04.2007 either allowing him to

opt the same now as done in case of Sub Dhyan Singh or by

applying the more beneficial clause and accordingly step up

the pay of the Applicant in the Rank of Naib Sub and Sub

with further direction to grant the Applicant arrears of such

pay fixation along with the interest @ 12 percent from the

date same was due till its actual realization.

(c) Pass any other order/orders as deemed appropriate by this

Hon’ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the

present case.

9. INTERIM ORDER, IF ANY PRAYED FOR:

NIL.
 21
IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,
WEST BLOCK-8, R. K. PURAM, NEW DELHI

OA No. __________/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

JC 76366A, SUB SURESH KUMAR C (RETD.) …..APPLICANT

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA& OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS

COMPILATION NO. 1 & 2

(For Index see inside)

Filed by:-

S S PANDEY & ASSOCIATES

Place: New Delhi Advocates
V-5, Green Park Extn,
Dated: .2018 New Delhi-16
Mob: 09968319917
 22
IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,
WEST BLOCK-8, R. K. PURAM, NEW DELHI
OA No. __________/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

JC 76366A, SUB SURESH KUMAR C (RETD.) …..APPLICANT

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA& OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS

INDEX OF COMPILATION 1 & 2

S. Particulars Pages
No. From To
Compilation 1
1. Urgent Application
2. Synopsis and List of Dates
3. Memo of Parties
4. Application under Section 14 of the Armed

Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, along with affidavit

5. Annexure A-1 (Colly) (Impugned)

Copy of the policy dated 11.12.2013 and

25.04.2013 for extension of option along with

impugned order dated 08.07.2016 passed in

case of similarly situated persons reflecting the

stand of the Respondents that such benefit has

to be given only after the intervention of this

Hon’ble Tribunal.
Compilation 2
6. Annexure A-2

Copy of the Special Army Instruction 1/S/2008

 23
dated 11.10.2008 along with relevant

instructions on exercise of option.

7. Annexure A-3 (Colly)

Copy of the judgment dated 10.12.2014 in OA

113 of 2014 and order dated 05.10.2017 in OA

1092 of 2017.
8. Annexure A-4 (Colly)

Copy of the monthly pay slip of the Applicant

and his juniors for the month of June 2017 and

Dec 2017 showing reduced pay structure.

9. VAKALATNAMA

Filed by :-

S S PANDEY & ASSOCIATES

Place: New Delhi Advocates
V-5, Green Park Extn,
Dated: .2018 New Delhi-16
Mob: 09968319917