Yogendra Singh (JC-759922-M NAIB SUBEDAR TCM [RADAR] v. Ministry of Defence
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 16, 21, 226
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VISHAL SAXENA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioner was discharged from Army with effect from
Operative part
31.12.2007. This writ petition is filed challenging the validity of the order of discharge. Several contentions have been urged. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can avail the remedy provided for under paragraph 364 of Regulations of the Army, 1986, by submitting a complaint to the Chief of the Army Staff. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail remedy of submitting a complaint/representation to the Chief of the Army Staff. As and when the petitioner submits his complaint/representation, the same shall be dealt with on its own merits by the authorities concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________
19.03.2008 Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 16, 21, 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.