Current

Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)  1236/I, Sector 43-B,
BSc, CAIIB, MBA, LLM Chandigarh-160022

Advocate: Pb & Hr High Court (M-9417413510)
08 Nov 2010
The Registrar General

Punjab & Haryana High Court
Chandigarh
Non-Fixing for Hearing of Urgent CM No. 22911 regd on

Oct 2010 [in COCP /10 decided on 21 July 2010]
Sir
Despite personal reminders to the Astt Registrar, the above Urgent CM

has not been fixed for hearing, mainly by raising unfair pleas including ‘Staff-
Shortage’, which please look into.
Lt Col N K Ghai (Retd) Advocate

01 Oct 2010
Chandigarh
Non-Issue of Certified Copy: Frivolous Objection
Sir
On 01 Oct 2010, I personally met the Registrar and by apprised him in writing
as under:
“On 16 Jul 2010, on deposit of Rs 20 vide Urgent petition No.12794 a copy of FINAL
DECISION ‘CR 2514/10: Parmod Tandon v Desh Paul’, by mentioning that decided
on 14Jul 2010, was applied. However, the copy has not been supplied (nor money
refunded) but the petition returned on the plea that the as per the case file the date of
decision is 20 July 2010. The plea that the Hon’ble Judge might have dictated it late,
since the copy applied is of the FINAL DECISION, as such the same be
supplied,at the most by getting the date corrected from this applicant, else the
money be refunded, but none acceded, which pl do”.
2. Surprisingly without caring for the provision of sec 4(1)(d) of RTI Act,
instead of revealing reasons for not supplying the demanded certified
copy, if not feasible, to refund the application money, a 2-line reply has
been sent:
‘I am directred to refer you to the subject cited above and to inform that
refund of intial amount deposited with the application for supply of
certrified copy cannot be made.’
I hope that rightful would be done

In the court of to Mr Barjinder Pal Singh JMIC, Chandigarh

Complaint u/s 200 CrPC
P.S. Sawhney v Union of India & Ors
Notice to Resp-4 without summoning order/ Process: illegal
Sir
It appears that the Complainant P.S. Sawhney without apprising
that he has lost upto Apex Court, Pb & High Court, National Consumer
Commission, Distt Forum with costs, etc and in Vigilance Deptt (UT)
regarding (while I was serving as Chief Law Officer in Chandigarh
Housing Board) has mislead this court as under:
(i) Got Notice issued, on merely filing of an application (about
which this respondent is not aware as no copy of the Complaint
has been served, nor in law can be served until order to issue
Process passed) for impounding/ depositing my Passport, knowing
fully well that only a Passport Officer and not the Magistrate can do
so: 2008(1) RCR (Crl) 897 SC,
(ii) that too by filing an application in the Complaint in which a stage
even for taking Cognizance or to issue Process/ summons has not
arrived and further by pre-poning of hearing, despite there being no
provision in the Cr.P.C to prepon.
It is prayed that the notice causing harassment to this Senior
Citizen/ Advocate be withdrawn.
Rajinder Ghai, (Resp-4)
Chandigarh; Oct 2010 Advocate, Pb & Hr High Court
The Sessions Judge

Chandigarh
Harrasment to Senior Citizen
Sir
On 27 Sep 2010, while I went to Samparak Centre, Sec 43, Chd,
one Mr P.S. Sawhney r/o 130/ 45A, Chd [who had lost upto Apex Court,
National Consumer Commission, Distt Forum with costs, etc and
Vigilance Deptt (UT) while I was serving as Chief Law Officer in
Chandigarh Housing Board] met me there and threatened by boasting of
unfairly bending the law machinery on applying to Mr Barjinderpal Singh
JMIC, Chd in his Complaint Vs UoI & Ors’ to get --
(i) Notice issued to me, on merely filing of an application for
impounding/ depositing my Passport, knowing fully well that only a
Passport Officer and not the Magistrate can do so: 2008(1) RCR
(Crl) 897 SC,
(ii) that too by filing an application in the Complaint in which the
stage even for taking Cognizance or to issue Process/ summons-
issue is yet to come up (in mid- Oct 2010).
(iii) that too again, without any provision (in the Cr.P.C) for pre-
poning of hearing.
I hope some suitable action in the matter.
Chandigarh; 01 Oct 2010 Rajinder Ghai, 1236(1)/43 Chandigarh
Advocate, Pb & Hr High Court
Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)  205- B, Model Town Extn, Ludhiana-2

CAIIB, MBA, LLM: Advocate 1232, Sec 43, Chandigarh-160022
Pb & Hr High Court and AFTs (M-9417413510)
and Supreme Court of India 01 Oct 2010
To
Maj Gen ADS Grewal,
Addl Dir Gen TA
GS Branch, IHQ of MoD (Army)
M-Block, New Delhi 110001
Contempt of High Court and AFT(s) order + your presence on 28 Oct 2010
Pl gracefully comply with the following orders failing which the Hon AFTs/ High
Court would be requested to make you personally present to explain your contempt-
uous attitude, as ordered by Hon Chandigarh bench of the AFT in the u/m 1st case
on 29 Sep 2010 to be personally presence on 28 Oct 2010:
1. In MA 107/10 vide order of Hon’ AFT Chd dt 29 Sep 2010, ADGTA to be

personally present on 28 Oct 2010, for not reinstating Sep Pawan Kumar
(No.10481248 of 103TA) as ordered on 11 Feb 2010 (in TA 258/09) for reinstating
with all consequential benefits on 30Sep2007.
2. in COCP 1043/10 (arising out of the CWP 5380/09 decided on 31 Jul 2009) the
Hon’ Pb & Hr High Court ordered on 23 Sep 2010 to demand by 28 Oct 2010, only
the net amount after adjusting full pay & allce ever since discharged on 1st Jan 2008
to the date of reinstatement, out of the total amount of Superannuation benefits and
pension paid (as in case of Regular army personnel) and reinstate TJ-4789 Nb Sub
Surinder Singh (126 TA).
3. Pb & Hr High Court Order dt 16 Aug 2010 in COCP 464/10 (arising out of order
dt 09 Nov 2009 in CWP 17057/09 by Nk Satbir Singh: No.10480363 of 103 TA to
reinstate with arrear of Pay).
4. Pb & Hr High Court Order Order dt 16 Aug 2010 COCP 467/10 (arising out of
order dt 13 Nov 2009 in CWP 17467/09 by Sep Gurdeep Singh: No.10480465 of
103 TA to reinstate with arrear of Pay).
Payment of pension (Qualifying service on retirement being >15 yrs at time of

retirement) of u/m TA officers vide u/n order of the Hon’ Principal Bench of the AFT:
5 MA ??/10 in TA 46/10 dt 19 Feb 10: Major S.D.Singh (TA-41899)

6 MA 307/10 in OA 205/10 dt 26 May 10: Major H.S. Gill (TA-40804)
7 MA 306/10 in OA 164/10 dt 26 May 10: P.C.Gupta (TA-41155)
8 MA 305/10 in OA 263/10:Mrs Sunita wd/o Maj Ram Pal Chauhan(TA-41126)
9 OA 207/10 dt 13 Aug 10: Mrs Urmil Gupta Wd/o TA-40804 Maj S.M. Gupta
10 OA 163/10 dt 13 Aug 10:TA-40804 Maj Laiq R Dogra (in lieu of civil pension)
11 Here it will be relevant to mention that if the within the time allowed (including
the extension period if granted on timely action, if no such time mentioned in the
Order, then within reasonable period, maximum being 3 months since after 3 months
no appeal lies even to Supreme court) the order is not complied and on filing of
Contempt petition, time is sought, it implies that the time sought is for compliance
and later on it cannot file an appeal to seek stay of the order to be complied with,
since that is taken as Contempt by misleading the court by seeking extension.
Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)
Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)  205- B, Model Town Extn, Ludhiana-2

CAIIB,MBA,LLM: Advocate 1232, Sec 43, Chandigarh-160022
and Supreme Court of India 01 Oct 2010
The General Manager (Ops)

State Bank of Patiala
H.O. Patiala -147001
‘Rise by Cheating’ has never been the policy of Bank: Lack of Training to Staff
Sir
I was delighted to receive your prompt and crisp reply vide No.GMO 2610 dt
21June 2010 in response to my letter dt 14 June 2010 (copes att) which was further
strengthened with a tele call from the BNC Ludhiana br-Chief Manager Mr Lachhman
Singh [who, when I was Br-Manager, he in nearby br was known to be soft spoken
and nice, of course, which he continues to be] that he wants to call on me, at my
residence, which he did.
A few days after, when I visited the branch, his Manager told him that after
speaking to Computer Cell at Belapur he has removed the MoD [Auto sweep to TD]
from the SB A/c 550026817617 because of which the amount in this a/c could not be
transferred to PPF a/c between 2nd to 5th May 2010 and ultimately it was debited to
OD (against TD) a/c 65034025241 and also that this SB a/c has been re-set as
‘Ex/Staff’ as it had been prior to Core-banking and further that the OD interest so
charged and higher rate of interest payable to ex-staff in SB a/c is being calculated
and is in process of being credited. Believing the Manager, I signed on the office
copy of some letter addressed to the HO, particularly when he insisted that the
contents are what has been orally told. However, when soon after, I went to the
manager’s seat and told him to show (on the Screen) what he has told, he dithered
and I struck off my above referred signature, promising to re-sign when things are set
right.
A few days after, the Chief Manager himself tele spoke to many to undo the
MOD and to designate the SB a/c as Staff, instead of Gen-Pub but the a/c continues
to be Gen-Pub (copy att), that too without the OD/SB interest adjustments. Rather,
the HO has been intimated that the Grievance has been removed and in token
Satisfaction-signature obtained, which being incorrect is really pinching.
It has never been the corporate policy of the bank, to gain by cheating/ telling
lie to the constituent and whosoever did so, was not spared, come what may be the
competition from other banks. This bank may have been small but beautiful and had
well meaning ethos and carried the image in its domain like the TATAs carry in their
huge sphere.
The loss of the interest (that too in favour of the bank) or non-designation of
SB a/c as STF is not of much importance at this stage of life when there is no dearth
of funds (always having lacs even in SB a/c), particularly when the better/ foundation
part of it came from this bank itself, about which I am proud of having gracefully
served [as such one can’t think of approaching Ombudsman, RBI, MoF, Distt
Consumer forum, Courts– it not being a Mahabharat wherein L. Krishan made Arjun
to draw arrows against his own relatives opposing him]. My only concern is that in the
era of competition there seems to lack of training imbibing the staff with the
Corporate policy of truthfulness (herein by telling that it cannot be done may be due
to paucity of staff/ time or lack of awareness) which strength an institution by which it
overcomes the upheavals that it may face in the long-run, so that the Public Sector,
the backbone of this socialist-economy, survives, besides the technical training, e.g,
herein, how the MOD became a pinching-liability both for the bank-staff as well as
the client and that no body in the bank knows how to designate the a/c as STF.
I am hopeful (hum layen hain toofan se kisti nikal ke, mere desh ko rakhna
mere bacho sambhal ke).
Encl: SB Stt of a/c Lt Col N.K. Ghai (Retd)
Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)  205- B, Model Town Extn

CAIIB,MBA,LLM: Advocate Ludhiana-141002
and Supreme Court of India 14 June 2010
The Managing Director

State Bank of Patiala
H.O. Patiala -147001
SB A/c 55026817617 BNC Ludhiana: Faulty System/ Lack of Training to Staff
In 1982, while serving as an officer of this bank, I opened, in BNC Ludhiana

branch a Saving a/c (No.4785) jointly with my wife [(Dr) Mrs Kumud Ghai, a professor
in Govt College for Women, Ludhiana]. About 7-8 years back, while having in it
average balance in lacs, on the advice of the Br AGM, Mr Jaswinder Singh, I signed
for MOD facility of automatic conversion by sweeping of balance above Rs10,000
into Term Deposit, which of its own to break to meet the debits in SB a/c. About 2-3
years ago, some heavy amount cheque(s) were dishonoured despite over all
sufficient balance. I repeatedly requested to discontinue the MOD/sweep facility but
the dealing officers despite best of their efforts and consultations with your Mumbai
office could not do so for months together, which compelled me to avoid keeping
heavy balance; ultimately about a year ago, the staff succeeded and discontinued the
MOD/Sweeping. However, on 2nd May 2010 by noticing auto-sweep/MOD to TDs I
requested the staff to stop it, but despite its sincere efforts it could not do. I kept
trying and complaining on the following days and ultimately on 5th May 2010, I had to
SMS to the Manager, Mr Ashwani Sharma to transfer from the SB a/c to Rs.70000+
70000+20000 to my, my son and my wife’s PPF a/cs. He too was unsuccessful and
so as to avoid loss of interest in PPF a/c, he transferred it from my current (overdraft
against TDs) a/c 65034025241 with assurance that in a day or so thing would be
rectified and no interest would be charged in the Current a/c (which hitherto had
credit balance). However, whenever I approached branch, the staff expresses
inability. As a result, my heavy amount (cash) cheques on both these accounts have
been dishonoured, despite that I have about Rs 4.20 lac current a/c limit (unutilised)
and about a lac in SB a/c.
Few years after the accounts were switched to computer system, I noticed that
interest was not being paid at the rate it was being paid hitherto for staff/ ex-staff.
Here again the staff to its best tried but could not do so and rather gave lame advice
to open fresh account, which for many reasons including that one might have given
this number to many others, is not feasible.
I hope, adequate remedial measures of simplifying the system including
adequately training the staff will be taken so that so as to save costly time of the staff
and the customers and loss of interest will be made up soon.
Lt Col N.K. Ghai (Retd)

CAIIB, MBA, LLM: Advocate Ludhiana-141002
Pb & Hr High Court and AFT (M-9417413510)
and Supreme Court of India Oct 2010
The Registrar
Armed Forces Tribunal
Chandigarh Bench
TA 367/10 Brig R.S.Sharma v UoI: Pending for 15 Oct 2010
The undersigned, being counsel for the Petitioners in above case,
is not feeling well and pray for adjournment of its hearing to any day
preferably 25/ 28 Oct 2010.
Lt Col Naresh Ghai (retd) Advocate

01 Oct 2010

Chandigarh
Non-Fixing for Hearing of Urgent CM No. 22910 regd on

8 Sep 2010 [in CR 2541/10 decided on 21 July 2010]
Sir
Despite personal reminders, the above Urgent CM has not been fixed
for hearing since 8 Sep 2010, mainly by raising unfair pleas including ‘Staff-
Shortage’, which please look into.

01 Oct 2010
Chandigarh
Non-Issue of Certified Copies of Decided CWPs/COCPs
Sir
On 13 Sep 2010, I personally met the Registrar and by apprising him delivered
a letter reading as under (having above ‘subject heading’):
“1 Despite reminder, the following copies have not been prepared and issued, as
such it is requested that efforts be made to improve the timely copy delivery system
so that the sanctity of the ‘Urgent’ copy is maintained:
Sr CASE No. & DECIDED ON PETITION No., DATE, AMOUNT PAID

1 CWP 20027/09:11 Aug 2010 Urgent: 18316 dt 16 Aug 2010 Rs.20
2 COCP 1052/10:16 Aug 2010 Urgent: 18317 dt 16 Aug 2010 Rs.20
3 CWP10215/96: 21 Mar 1997 Urgent: 22260 dt 09 Sep 2010 Rs.20
4 COCP1778/10:10 Sep 2010 Urgent: 22497 dt 10 Sep 2010 Rs.20
[
2. On 16 Jul 2010, on deposit of Rs 20 vide Urgent petition No.12794 a copy of

FINAL DECISION ‘CR 2514/10: Parmod Tandon v Desh Paul’, by mentioning that
decided on 14Jul 2010, was applied. However, the copy has not been supplied (nor
money refunded) but the petition returned on the plea that the as per the case file the
date of decision is 20 July 2010. The plea that the Hon’ble Judge might have dictated
it late, since the copy applied is of the FINAL DECISION, as such the same be
supplied,at the most by getting the date corrected from this applicant, else the
money be refunded, but none acceded, which pl do”.
2. Surprisingly, nothing has been done, which calls for in-house search
to bring out the unfairness as why the copies of finally decided cases are
not prepared on the basis of 1st come 1st serve from the date the file has
come back from the Court.
IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH AT NEW DELHI

O.A. No. 207/2010 decided on 12.08.2010
Urmila Gupta .........Applicant
Versus
Union of India ........Respondents
For applicant: Lt. Col. (Retd.) Naresh Ghai, Advocate.
For respondents: Sh. Ankur Chibber, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. MATHUR, CHAIRPERSON.
HON’BLE LT. GEN. M.L. NAIDU, MEMBER.
ORDER
12.08.2010
1. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the present case are
that applicant is the widow of late Maj. Suraj Mal Gupta who had put in
18 years unblemished service in the Territorial Army which is a part of
regular Army but he was not granted pension. Husband of the applicant
was commissioned on 18.02.1960 as 2nd Lieutenant and retired on
31.03.1978. Husband of the applicant died on 30.09.1996. Applicant has
filed this application for grant of pensionary benefits which were denied
to his husband in the light of decision given by this Tribunal in the case of
Maj. S.D. Singh vs. Union of India (T.A. No. 46/2010).
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been
agitating this issue for the last so many years but without any result.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present case is
covered by the decision given by this Bench in the case of Maj. S.D.
Singh vs. Union of India (T.A. No. 46/2010) dated 19.02.2010.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that this case is
not covered by the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, we allow this
application in the light of aforesaid judgment. However, she will be
entitled to arrears only three years preceding from the date of filing of the
present application. Arrears shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. Whole
exercise may be completed within a period of three months. No order as
to costs.
A.K. MATHUR
(Chairperson)
M.L. Naidu
(Member)
New Delhi
August 12, 2010.

and Supreme Court of India 6 Sep 2010
To
The Principal
Govt College for Women
Ludhiana
Contempt of Court: CWP 15413/07: Surinder Kaur & ors v State of Pb
Some of Petitioners-lecturers in above case are on verge of retirement, but
maliciously their Pension-cases are not being forwarded to AG, despite undernoted
provisions of CSR (Vol-II), to deprive them of the timely payment of pensionary
benefits for having filed above writ petition to get Senior Scale/ Selection Grade by
counting their adhoc service, which being contemptuous, requires due rectification:
CSR(II) ‘9.3 Preparation of pension papers:- Every Head of Office
shall undertake the work of preparation of pension papers in Form PEN-1 two
years before which the Govt employee is due to retire..
9.4 Stage for completion of pension papers: .. verification of service ..
9.5 Completion of pension papers:- The Head of Office shall complete
Part I of Form PEN-1 not less than six months before the date of retirement of
the Govt employee.
9.6 Forwarding of pension papers to the Acctt-General, Punjab-
(4) The documents referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be forwarded to the
Accountant-General, Punjab not later than six months before the date of
retirement of the Govt employee.
9.7 Intimation to the A.G, Pb regarding any event having bearing on pension -
If after fwd papers within specified period, any event occurs, which has bearing on
the amount of pension admissible, the same shall be promptly reported to the AG Pb.
9.8 Intimation of the particulars of Govt dues to the A.G Pb–at least 2
months before date of retirement ..
9.10 Authorisation of Pension & Gratuity by the AG, Pb-(1) ..AG, Pb
shall.. assess the amount of pension & gratuity and issue the PPO not later
than one month before the date of retirement of the Govt employee’


and Supreme Court of India 26 Aug 2010
The Registrar
Chandigarh Bench
TA 367/10 Brig R.S.Sharma v UoI: Pending for 31 Aug 2010
prays for adjournment of the its hearing since he is proceeding to Delhi
due to some urgent matter and prays for adjornment to any day
preferably 24/29 Sep or 8 Oct 2010.
The PIO/ Principal,

SCD Govt College, Ludhiana-1
Information under Right to
Information Act:
Thanks for your quick response dt 17July 2010 to my letter dt 10 July 2010
and also for promptly identifying the info asked that too assessing in such a way
that it comes to ROUND Rs.500, for which a bank draft is attached and thus I
hope to get the same within 3 days.
As per the law, also as settled by the Info Commission, any inchoate (left
blank intentionally) financial instrument held by the payee can be completed by
him and the filling in the Payee’s name (amount and date already printed) need
not be insisted, since that was intentionally left blank to avoid fast credit/
collection in the PIO’s account held in any name/ style. Rather, as per the RTI Act,
Rules and Instructions it needs to be filled as ‘Accounts Officer’ of the respective
Office, who may not be the PIO.
I hope more info asked, as per encl appl by attaching same Rs.10 IPO, would also
be promptly dealt.
Pawan Aggarwal
Attachment- Bank Draft for Rs 500 123-E, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana-1
Another u/n RTI-Appl & Rs.10 IPO
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………..
The PIO/ Principal.

Information under
Right to Information Act:
Pl supply all such material from which the authority to collect
& spend money with transparency & fairness including audit/
control can be ascertained i.e,
1. Funds: Pl intimate the name, purpose, source, rate, authority/ rule/
instructions authorising levy/ collection & purpose/procedure for which it
can be spent, of each Fund (including PTA, Students’ Council, etc) held by
the College and Supply balance sheets for the last 3 Fin years And also the
amount out standing in each fund as on 1 April of 2007, 2008, 2009 &
2010, alongwith the amount collected and spent out of each such fund
(with detail of each expenditure) during the years 2007-08, 2008-09 &
2009-10, besides supply the name & appointment of the person/firm who
audited each of these funds.
2 Collections(non-fee): Pl intimate with detail with name of each
student/person/firm/body/ institution from whom any amount was received
since April 2007 and the instruction authorising the same, except by
issuing direct money receipt by the College Fee Clerk to each student only
at the time of admission/receiving University Exam Fee/issuing Roll No.
3 Gifts: Pl intimate the detail, purpose, value, instructions
authorising the same of any Item presented/ gifted (including sponsored)
to any one (except prizes to students) ever since April 2007.
4 Higher Authority Control: Whether any balance sheet/statement
of each fund (including PTA, Students’ Council, etc) held have been sent to
the DPI(Colleges) Pb and Affiliating University ever since April 2007, if so,
pl supply copy of same.
5. Prospectus: What was the price (intimate Govt Rule/Instruction
fixing the same) and cost (how many copies got printed for what amount)
of the Prospectus for 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 and how many were
sold and un-sold each of these years and the purpose for which the surplus
amount (sale proceeds less cost).
6 List of Admission Forms B.A/B.Sc/B.Com (II & III): Pl intimate

how many forms were received for admission in each class of B.A (II & III),
B.Sc (II & III) and B.Com (II & III) of academic sessions 2008-09, 2009-10 &
2010-11 and also supply details/list of all such students alongwith their %
age marks in lower class, by duly ticking the name of those actually
admitted and also intimate the date(s) on which such admission was
allowed. Quote the para in each prospectus where it has been mentioned
that forms for admission in class of B.A(II & III), B.Sc (II & III) and B.Com (II
& III) will be accepted, if not, pl intimate the reason on what basis such
forms were accepted by hand delivery, that too without any advertisement
in newspapers. Pl also supply copy of advertisement published in
newspapers for admission to various classes for the years 2008-09, 2009-
10 & 2010-11.
Pawan Aggarwal
Attachment- IPO for Rs 10 123-E, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana-1
THE THIRD SCHEDULE (See section 11)
DECLARATION TO BE MADE BY THE BRIDEGROOM
I, A.B.,
I hereby declare as follows:-

1. I am at the present time unmarried (or a widower or a divorcee, as the
case may be).
2. I have completed…………………years of age.
3. I am not related to C.D. (the bride) within the degrees of prohibited
relationship.
4. I am aware that, if any statement in this declaration is false, and
if in making such statement, I either know or believe it to be false or do
not believe it to true. I am liable to imprisonment and also to fine.
(Sd/-) A.B. (the Bridegroom)
DECLARATION TO BE MADE BY HE BRIDE
,C.D.
I hereby declare as follows;-

1. I am at the present time unmarried (or a widow or a divorcee, as the
case may be).
2. I have completed……………………………………..years of age.
3. I am not related to A.B. (the Bridegroom) within the degrees of
prohibited relationship.
4. I am aware that, if any statement in this declaration is false,
and if in making such statement I either know or believe it to be false or
do not believe it to be true, I am liable to imprisonment and also to fine.
(Sd/-) C.D. (the Bride)
Signed in our presence (Three witness) by the above-named A.B. and

C.D. so far as we are aware there is no lawful impediment to the marriage
(Sd) G.H.
(Sd) I.J
(Sd) K.L.
Countersigned E.F.,
Marriage Officer,
Dated the day of 2010
Ex-Sep Bhupinder Singh c/o Col N.K.Ghai

205-B, Model Town Extn, Ludhiana-141002
21 July 2010
The PIO
HQ 7 Inf Div
Info u/s 6 RTI Act
Sir
Pl refer to your letter No.1741/3/RTI/GS(Edn) dt 13 July 2010 in

response of my letter dt 10 Jun 2010 to 159 MH seeking the dates and
the disease for which my wife [w/o Sep Bhupinder Singh No.10515254 of
152 Inf Bn (TA)SIKH] was admitted/treated/ operated in this MH during/
around June 2003.
The info if not otherwise available, then could have been supplied as
based on the Hospital Admission/ Discharge record.
Encl: Fresh Rs10 IPO No. Ex-Sep Bhupinder Singh

fvg PIO HQ 7 Infantry Division
Copy to: 159 MH … wrt its letter No.423/Misc/M-5/Stats/10 dt 30 Jun 10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

[Under Sec 30(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act,2007 against
the judgment/final order of the Armed Forces
Tribunal,Chandigarh Bench at Chandimandir,dt 19.4.2010 in
T.A. No. 32 of 2010]
SLP(C) No._____of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:
Lt Col N.K.Ghai ……..Petitioner

VERSUS
Union of India ………Respondent
INDEX OF FILING
1. SLP with affidavit 1+3 Rs 252

2. Certified copy of Judgment 1+3
3. Memo of Appearance
4.
Note: Spare copies of documents are correct and

true copies of their respectives.
New Delhi:Dt 26July 2010 Petitioner-In-Person


[Under Sec 30(1) of the Armed Forces TribunalAct,2007] against
final judgment the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
dt 19.04.2010 in T.A. No.32/2010]
SLP(C) No._____of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Lt Col N.K.Ghai son of Dyal Chand, aged 59 years,
permanent r/o 205-B Model Town Extn, Ludhiana, the
petitioner do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That the petitioner is conversant with the facts of
the case and has himself drafted this SLP, as such
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That contents of the SLP, List of Dates and the facts
stated therein are true to my knowledge.
3. That the Annexures are true copies of their originals
and formed record before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Facts stated as above are true to my knowledge
Verified at Ludhiana on 21 July 2010 DEPONENT

FREE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.4.2010
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH AT CHANDIMANDIR
T.A. No.32 of 2010 (arising out C.A.No.13 of 2009)
N.K.Ghai ... Appellant
Vs
UOI & Ors .. Respondents
For the appellant: Appellant in person.
For the respondent (s): Mr. Sandeep Bansal, GGC.
T.A. No. 34 of 2010 (arising out C.A. NO.46 of 2009)
Union of India & others ........ Appellants
Vs.
N.K. Ghai ….. Respondent
For the Appellant(s}: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, GC
For the respondent: Mr. N.K. Ghai in person.
ORDER: 19-04-2010
CORAM: Justice Ghanshyam Prasad, Judicial Member
Lt Gen A.S. Bahia (Retd), Administrative Member
GHANSHYAM PRASAD
Both this cases arise out of one and same judgment dated 21-
01-2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patt1ankot in
Civil Suit No.258 of 2005.
The plaintiff-appellant N.K. Ghai filed civil suit
against Union of India and others for claiming Qualification
Grant ( in short 'QG') for completing MBA Course in the light
of Army H.Q letter No.
A/633088/GS/MT-10 dated 26-11-2001 as well as for directing
the defendant-respondents not to recover the amount
Le.Rs.10,000/- already paid to the plaintiff-appellant as
qualifying grant for completion of LL.M. course.
Defendants (Union of India & ors) filed written statement
alleging therein that the plaintiff is not entitled to get
qualification grant for completing MBA course as he had no
five years residual Army Service. It is further alleged that
even at the time of passing of LL.M.
Examination, the petitioner was not legally entitled to
get QG as even at that time he had no five years residual
service which is essential requirement for QG. However, due to
mistake, the same was paid to the plaintiff which is liable to
be recovered from him being illegal.
On the pleadings of the parties the learned lower court
framed as many as six issues. However, the main issue is Issue
No.1.
The learned lower court after examination of various
provisions of Army Rules, Regulations and instructions
ultimately rejected the claim of the plaintiff for payment of
Rs. 10,000/- as Qualification Grant for completion of MBA
Course. However, the learned lower court allowed the prayer of
the plaintiff directing the defendants to refund the recovered
amount of Rs. 10,000/- which had already been paid to him for
completing LL.M. course with interest @ 10% per annum.
Both the parties filed their respective appeals against
the said judgment. The plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No.13 of
2009, while the respondents (Union of India & ors) preferred
Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2009 against the aforesaid judgment.
So far as Civil Appeal NO.13 of 2009 corresponding to TA 32
of 2010 is concerned, after hearing both the learned counsel
for the parties and going through the judgment of the learned
lower Court as well as the relevant instructions of the Army
H.Q. we are of the view that the Court below has rightly
refused the Qualification Grant to the plaintiff-appellant as
he had no five years residual Army service at the time of
passing of MBA exam. He obtained the degree of MBA in the year
2004-05. At that very time the remaining service of the
plaintiff was only 2 years as he was to retire on 1-01-2006.
In view of the instructions of Army H.Q. an individual is
entitled to get Qualifica- tion Grant of Rs.10,000 if he has
minimum 5 years residual service at the time of passing of
exam. Therefore the learned lower Court has rightly rejected
the prayer of the plaintiff-appellant.
So far as CA NO.46 of 2009 corresponding to TA NO.34 of
2010 is concerned, this appeal has also got no merit. The
appellant (UOI) paid the ‘QG' voluntarily to the plaintiff
'under misconception of Rules and Regulations and hence he is
not now entitled to recover the same. The learned lower Court
has rightly relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court
and other High Courts, wherein it has been held that if any
amount was paid erroneously or has been obtained by an
employee without committing any fraud, misrepresentation or
deception, the authority has no power to recover the same. In
the case in hand, admittedly, the plaintiff was paid ‘QG’

after passing LL.M. examination in the year 2003. The amount
has already been spent by the plaintiff in good faith. Under
the circumstances, the Court below has rightly directed the
respondents (UOI & ors) to refund the amount with interest @
10% per annum.
In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion
that no case has been made out by either of the parties to
interfere in the impugned Judgment. .
Accordingly, both the appeals are hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- (Justice Ghanshyam Prasad)
Sd/- (Lt Gen A. S. Bahia (Retd)
FREE COPY UNDER RULE 23 of
AFT (PROCEDURE) RULES 2008"
Sd/-(Section Officer)
26/4/2010
PREPARED BY CHECKED BY
Annexure P-2
No.1(22)/97/D(pay/Services)
Government of India,
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi,
Dated 8th January, 1998
To
The Chief of the Army Staff
The Chief of the Naval Staff
The Chief of the Air Staff
Subject: RECOMMENDATIONS OFTHE FIFTH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION

ON ALLOWANCES/ CONCESSIONS IN RESPECT OF OFFICERS OF THE
ARMY,NAVY& AIR FORCE-IMPLEMENTATION OF
Sir,
1 I am directed to say that consequent on the decisions of

the Government on the recommendations of the Fifth Central
Pay Commission relating to allowances and concessions in
respect of Officers of Army, Navy & Air Force vide
Ministry of Defence Resolution No.1(5)/97/D (Pay/Services)
dt 13 Oct 1997, the President is pleased to sanction
revised rates of allowances/ concessions to the officers
of the three services, where applicable as per Appendix
attached to this letter.
2. The revised rates of the above allowances/ concessions

will be effective from 01 Aug 1997.
3.The existing terms and conditions for grant of allowance

-s/concessions would continue to be applicable in respect of
revised rates notified in the Appendix to this letter. As far
as Flying Allowance, Test Pilot Allowance, Fighter Pilot
Allowance, Submarine Allowance and Siachen Allowance are
concerned further orders may be awaited.This Ministry's letter
No.1(5)/97/D (Pay/Services) dated 21.11.97 regarding
modification of Flying Allowance etc. is held in abeyance.
4 The relevant Rules in Pay & Allcs Regultns for Army,
Navy & Air Force will be suitably amended in due course
5 This letter issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Def

(Finance) vide their U.O No. 18/PA/98 dated 8 Jan 1998.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- (L. T. TLUANGA)

Under Secretary to the Govt of India
Annexure P-3
No.1(26)/97/XXII/D(Pay/Services)
Government of India,Ministry of Defence
New Delhi -110011
Dated 29th February, 2000
To
The Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi
The Chief of the Naval Staff, New Delhi
The Chief of the Air Staff, New Delhi
Subject: Removal of Anomalies arising out of the

Implementation of Revised Pay Scales and Allowances
Consequent to the V CPC Recommendations- Impementation of
Technical Allowance - regarding
Sir,
I am directed to refer to this Ministry’s letter No.
1(22)/97/D(Pay/Services) dt 8.1.1998 and to state that the
issue regarding certain anomalies arising from the
implementation of revised pay scale and allowances
consequent to the V CPC award has been in considered in
the light of the recommendations of a committee specially
constituted on the above subject and it has been decided
that the Technical Allowances to the Technical qualified
officers of the three services will be granted in two
rates ie, Tier-I courses Rs.1000 per month and Tier-II
courses Rs.1500 per month.
2. The Technical Allowance at the rate applicable for
Tier-I courses will be admissible to all officers of the
three services from the date they complete the prescribed

professional Technical Training and are available for full
deployment. While pre-induction professional Technical
Training is prescribed in Navy and Air Force. So for as
the Army is concerned, such training courses will be
identified by the Ministry in consultation with Army
Headquarters.
3. The Tier-II courses for this purpose will be
identified by this Ministry in consultation with Service
HQrs to ensure that such courses enable the officers to
acquire specialization on a particular weapon or system
plateform. Till such time a list of eligible Tier-II
course is finalized, the Technical Allowance will be paid
only at the rate applicable for
Tier-I courses.
4. Technical Allowance for the re-employed officers
will be admissible only when they are actually deployed on
technical and maintenance duties and also fulfill the
prescribed eligibility conditions.
5. This Ministry’ letter No.Air HQ/23956/G/100/PP &R-
1/1376/D(Pay/ Services) dt 14.4.82, No.PA/0262/N 11Q/
3295/D(Pay/Services) dt 9.8.84 and No.30(10)31/D(Pay/
Services) dt 6-11-1984 are hereby superseded with
immediate effect.
6. The relevant rules in Pay & Allowance Regulations for
Army, Navy and Air Force will be suitably amended in due
course.
7. This allowance takes effect from 1st August 1997.

This issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Defence
(Finance)vide their U.O No.1/77/99-PA dt 23-2-2000.
Yours Faithfully
R.K.Grover
Under secretary to the Govt of India
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH AT

CHANDIGARH
Ex-Nb Sub Rajinder Singh s/o Kirpa Ram, r/o v. Kothi, P.O. Booni-
Noughi -177048, Tehsil Nodaun, Distt Hamirpur ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-11
2. Additional Director General TA, Ministry of Defence, Integrated HQ,

Army (TA), L-Block, New Delhi-1
3. The OIC Records, JAKRIF, Jabalpur (MP)
4. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts(Pensions),Allahabad-14
5. Commanding Officer, 155 Inf Bn(TA)JAKRIF,Sujanpur/Pathankot (Pb)
…Respondents
and Supreme Court of India 26 Aug 2010
The Registrar
Chandigarh Bench
TA 367/10 Brig R.S.Sharma v UoI: Pending for 31 Aug 2010

prays for adjournment of the its hearing since he is proceeding to Delhi
due to some urgent matter and prays for adjornment to any day
preferably 24/29 Sep or 8 Oct 2010.

(2002) 10 SSC 487 entitled Ramdeo Baba Kamala Nehru Engineering College and Ors. v.
Sanjay Kumar and Ors.
ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2003) 6 SCC 697
The PIO/ Principal,

Govt College for Women, Ludhiana-1
Information under
Ref your reply dt Sep 2010 to my appl dt Aug 2010 demanding Rs

35000, meaning thereby that the info sought to be supplied is spread over
17500 pages, which bulk was never demanded. The info has to be
supplied from the documents where it lies in summary form, e.g, if the
info asked is “how many Identity cards have been issued to students” the
reply can’t that info be gathered from the copies of the list of students”.
For better understanding the info demanded is summarised as under, pl
indicate the number of pages containing the info thereof and the
amount so calculated by you against each as part of Rs 35000:
1. Funds: Which authority instructed:

(i) collection of funds & at what rate
(ii) purpose for which these can be spent;
(iii) balance sheets for three years [which contains standing in each
fund as on 1 April of 2007, 2008, 2009 & 2010, alongwith the amount
collected and spent out of each such fund (with detail of each expenditure)
during the years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10] which if audited would be
having name of auditors.
2 Collections (non-fee): List of students/ persons/ firms from which

amount(s) received other than by issuing direct money receipt by
the College Fee Clerk.
3 Gifts: Intimate the detail, purpose, value, instructions authorising

the same of any Item presented/ gifted (including sponsored) to any one
(except prizes to students) ever since April 2007.
4 Higher Authority Control: Whether (reply: Yes/No) any balance

sheet/statement of each fund (including PTA, Students’ Council, etc) held
have been sent to the DPI(Colleges) Pb and Affiliating University
ever since April 2007, if so, pl supply copy the same, IF NOT
ALREADY COVERED UNDER PARA 1(iii) ABOVE.

fixing the same) and cost (how many copies got printed for what
amount) of the Prospectus for 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 and how
many were sold and un-sold each of these years and name the
ACCOUNT in which the surplus amount (sale proceeds less cost)
held.
how many forms (Number) were received for admission* in each class
of B.A (II & III), B.Sc (II & III) and B.Com (II & III) of academic sessions 2008-
09, 2009-10 & 2010-11
and also supply list of all such students alongwith their % age marks in
lower class, by duly ticking the name of those actually admitted and
also intimate the date(s) on which such admission was allowed. Quote the
para in each prospectus where it has been mentioned that forms for
admission in class of B.A(II & III), B.Sc (II & III) and B.Com (II & III) will be
accepted, if not, pl intimate the reason on what basis such forms were
accepted by hand delivery, that too without any advertisement in
newspapers.
Pl also supply copy of advertisement published in newspapers for
admission to various classes for the years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11
* ‘Admission’ means fresh Admission to college and not of those who

are not already on the College roll (in Three year Degree Course), that is
why for them no advertisement is issued.
*As such this info relates to fresh admission of those who have not studied
in lower class in the college.
Pawan Aggarwal
123-E, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana-1
Mrs Pushpinder Sekhon

c/o Lt Col N K Ghai
205- B, Model Town Extn
Ludhiana-141002
10Sep 2010
The Provo Marshal & Appellate Authority
Integrated HQ of Mo D (Army), 421-A, B-Wing,
Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
Appeal against supply of irrelevant Info
The PIO/ ADG AE vide No. 810027/RTI/5385 dt 03 Sep 2010 supplied u/m irrelevant
info against the following demand on 31Jul 2010:
Query Query asked Query replied Deficiency/inaccuracy
1 Kindly intimate details with dates of Total embodied The TA Dte being
embodied service/ trg undergone by service in r/o late record office of TA
my husband, late Major H.S.Sekhon Major H.S.Sekhon is offrs, it has details
(TA-40706, CDA (O) A/C VIII/117/ 14 yrs 6 months and of month wise paid
102289) who after commissioning on 19 days as per i.e trg/ embodied
6 Aug 1958, retired on 31 Dec 77 PCDA (P) letter No. service of TA offrs,
(expired on 24 Aug 1998) G1/M/Misc/VIII dt 21 as entered by it in
Dec 2001 (copy att Record of Service,
as Annx ‘A’) which ought to have
been supplied.
2 Pl also supply copy each of petition, 1. The petition, reply/ The 103-page info
reply/written statement/ counter written statement/ supplied is copy of
affidavit and Court order in counter affidavit in reply filed in July
(i) Civil Writ Petition No.3128/78 r/o TA-40706 Maj 2010 by TA Dte in
titled ‘Maj PK Mohla (TA-41168), Maj (retd) HS Sekhon is my own Petition TA
HS Sekhon (TA-40706), Capt Anup att as Annx ‘B’ No. 403 of 2010
Singh(TA-41136) & Capt AS Jamwal pending before the
(TA-41167) Vs Union of India & Ors) 2. Civil Writ Petition AFT (copy of 1st
in Supreme Court and reply/written page of Appx-B att)
(ii) SLPs in Civil Appeal No. 3098/ statement/ counter is irrelevant As the
1980 (Major Laiq Ram Vs UoI) and affidavit and Court demand was copies
1760/ 1980 (Major Paramjit Singh Vs order and SLP in of Civil writ petition
UoI) in Supreme Court as well as other cases cannot filed by my husband
corresponding writ petitions, counter be provided being 3rd Maj Sekhon & other
affidavits and orders by Delhi High party as per sec 11 officers in 1978 and
Court leading to these SLPs. of RTI Act. reply/ orders
thereon.
Exclusive 3rd party
info need not be
supplied.
Pl accept the Appeal. Supply the relevant info against point No.1.
Pl also supply info against point No. 2, but if its reply is to be that
this info is not available, then refund Rs 206.
Encl: Appx A & B Mrs Pushpinder Sekhon
The PIO/ Principal.

Ludhiana-1
Info u/s 6 RTI Act
Pl supply all such material from which the authority to collect &
spend money with transparency & fairness including audit/ control
can be ascertained i.e,





10 & 2010-11.
Pawan Aggarwal

and Supreme Court of India
OA 76/10 Chd Rajiv 31 Aug 2010

The PIO/ RTI Cell, ADG AE
IHQ of Mo D (Army), G-6, D-1 Wing
Gate-4, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
Supply of Info u/s 6 of RTI Act:
Pl supply copy of letter No.6015/R/TA-3 dt 06 Feb 2003 having heading:

‘DISCP/ DISCH: TA PERSONNEL’
issued by the TA Group HQ Western Command (copy att) to its List C,
alongwith copies sent to (and received by):
(i) ADG TA(TA-3) Army HQ
(ii) ADG TA(TA-4) Army HQ
(iii) TA Group HQ Southern Command
(iv) TA Group HQ Eastern Command
(v) TA Group HQ Central Command
(vi) Director DSC (for TA Group) Northern Command
2. Also pl supply copy of Army HQ letter No.B/54134/GS/TA-3/Embd dt 18 Mar 2002
Encl: Rs10 IPO No. Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)

and Supreme Court of India
TA 403/10 Chd Pushp 06 Sep 2010

The PIO/ Director (Pension), Ministry/Deptt of Defence
Room No. 213, A-Wing, Sena Bhawan
New Delhi-110011
Supply of Info u/s 6 of RTI Act: Pension Policy
Pl supply Army No, Name and period of shortfall condoned during the
last 30 years for granting pension to Commissioned Officers of Regular
army (RA), Territorial Army (TA) and Non-Regular Army (NRA) officers.
2. Also pl intimate whether commissioned officers of the TA are
entitled to get pension if at the time of retirement the Qualifying service is
15 or more years but less than 20 years,if so, provide copy of such letter
3. Pl also intimate whether Service Element (SE) is necessary

component of Disability Pension (DP) and is to be granted at the time of
retirement/ release on completion of terms of engagement to
commissioned officers of the TA and NRA when the disability is held
attributable to or aggravated by military service and is more than 20% ,
what if less than 20%. Whether such Disability Element (DE) is to be
rounded off to 50-75-100%.
4 When a (a) Battle casuality:BC (b) non-BC but with disability

attributable to or aggravated by military service officer of (i) RA (ii) TA or
(iii) NRA, who cannot be promoted to Col due to disability, voluntarily
leaves army with less than 20 years of commissioned service, would he
be entitled to Service Element of Disability Pension.
Encl: Rs10 IPO No. Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)

PIO/ Dean, College Development Council
Panjab University
Chandigarh- 160014
Info u/s 6 RTI ACT: Period during which the Posts of Principals (aided
colleges) were not filled up regularly during last 5 years And copy of
such interview proceeding last held in DD Jain Girls College, Ludhiana
Pl intimate by post, the following info reg the above:

1. The number of (i) Aided colleges (ii) Affiliated colleges to Pb U.
2 The period (spell) in the last 5 years, during which the Post of each
Principal in aided college was regularly (i) filled up (ii) remained vacant.
are the steps taken by the University to ensure that the colleges do not
keep the post of Principal vacant for more than 3 months.
3 Copy of interview proceeding last held for post of the Principal of

Devki Devi Jain Girls College, Ludhiana, showing the marks awarded/
remarks made regarding the undersigned and all other candidates who
scored better marks including based on the degrees/ experience/
Publications and other parameters. Pl also intimate whether this post has
been filled up, if not, why and for what period it was regularly filled up
during last 5 years, and when it will be filled up now, if already advertised
in which newspaper/ date.
Dr(Mrs) Kumud Ghai

w/o Lt Col N. K. Ghai (retd)
205-B, Model Town Extn
Encl: Rs10 IPO no.418783 Ludhiana-141002

To
The Principal
Govt College for Women
Ludhiana
Contempt of Court: CWP 15413/07: Surinder Kaur & ors v State of Pb
Some of Petitioners-lecturers in above case are on verge of retirement, but

maliciously their Pension-cases are not being forwarded to AG, despite undernoted
provisions of CSR (Vol-II), to deprive them of the timely payment of pensionary
benefits for having filed above writ petition to get Senior Scale/ Selection Grade by
counting their adhoc service, which being contemptuous, requires due rectification:
CSR(II) ‘9.3 Preparation of pension papers:- Every Head of Office
shall undertake the work of preparation of pension papers in Form PEN-1
two years before which the Govt employee is due to retire..
9.4 Stage for completion of pension papers: .. verification of service ..
9.5 Completion of pension papers:- The Head of Office shall complete
Part I of Form PEN-1 not less than six months before the date of
9.6 Forwarding of pension papers to the Acctt-General, Punjab-
(4) The documents referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be forwarded to the
Accountant-General, Punjab not later than six months before the date of
9.7 Intimation to the A.G, Pb regarding any event having bearing on pension -
If after fwd papers within specified period, any event occurs, which has bearing on
the amount of pension admissible, the same shall be promptly reported to the AG Pb.
9.8 Intimation of the particulars of Govt dues to the A.G Pb– at least 2
months before date of retirement ..
9.10 Authorisation of Pension & Gratuity by the AG, Pb-(1) ..AG, Pb
shall.. assess the amount of pension & gratuity and issue the PPO not later
than one month before the date of retirement of the Govt employee’

The Secretary,
Deptt of Higher Education, Pb,
Mini Sectt, Chandigarh-160009
The DPI (Colleges) Punjab

Sec 17, Chandigarh- 160017
Legal Notice: Astt Prof Satveer Kaur, GCW, Ludhiana
Non-Grant of Sr Scale from 23Aug 94 instead of 1-3-2000
Due to non-sanction of duly recommended Leave/Pending
And Non-Grant of Sel Grade from 23Aug 1999
2
Pl take notice on behalf of abovenamed that she has not been sanctioned Sr
Scale from 23 Aug 94 and Sel Grade from 23 Aug 1999, but has been sanctioned Sr
Scale from 1 Mar 2000, mainly due to non-sanction of her leave (duly recommended)
for which, as it seems from the DPI (C)’s memo No. 10/93-94 S-5 dt 19 July 1994 to
No.3415-10/83-94 S-5 dt 27 May 09, 26 Nov 09 & 25 Jun 2009 (copies att), that the
DPI(C) has tired after making concerted efforts to sanction the leave from 1/4/93
(Thursday) to 3/5/93, 5/7/93 (Monday) and from 1/12/93 to 25/2/94, leading to
depriving her Sr scale that too granted on High Court orders, which erroneous
grant being contempt of court, I hope you would avoid by sanctioning from
abovesaid dates alongwith her duly recommended due-leave within a month.
Here it will not be out of place to mention that as evident from the Confirmation
copy of the telegram received (at no.T-77/C dt 19/3/93:copy att) in the Govt College
GTB Garh from the Astt Registrar (Conduct) Pb Univ appointing her Supdt Ludhiana-
5 Exam Centre from 3-4-1993 (for which she remained Supdt from 2-4-1993 to 3-5-
93, by getting this telegram from the GTB college and performing journey on 1-4-93)
yet to avoid further hassles she applied leave from 1/4/93 to 3/5/93 and for 5/7/93.
Similarly even if her leave is sanctioned from 1/12/93 to 25/2/94, yet the day of
26/2/94 [reg which an entry is made by GTB college in her Service Book, “Reported
for duty on 26-2-94(FN) after long absence & relieved on 26-2-94(AN)”] and the
following day of 27-2-94(Sunday) for journey on transfer to Patti (where she joined
on 28-2-98 FN) are yet to be verified as service
Encl: 4 Lt Col Naresh Ghai (retd) Advocate

The PIO/ DPI (Colleges) Punjab
Sec 17, Chandigarh- 160017
Info u/s 6 RTI ACT: Astt Prof Satveer Kaur, GCW, Ludhiana
Non-Grant of Sr Scale from 23Aug 94 instead of 1-3-2000
Due to non-sanction of duly recommended Leave/Pending
And Non-Grant of Sel Grade from 23Aug 1999
Pl intimate by post, the following info reg the above:

1. What is the laid down time-schedule for sanctioning leave due to a
lecturer from the day it is received in the DPI’s Office, duly recommended
Within how much period the action to sanction following leave will be
completed.
2. Reason for not taking further to sanction leave from 1/4/93 to 3/5/93,
5/7/93 and 1/12/93 to 25/2/94, despite DPI(C) own exhortation vide
memo No. 10/93-94 S-5 dt 19 July 1994 to No.3415-10/83-94 S-5 dt 27
May 09, 26 Nov 09 & 25 Jun 2009.
3. Action taken to get the Service verified for two days of 26 & 27 Feb 94.
4 On which date my service book was received in the office of DPI(C)
and when it will be returned.
5 Is the DPI(C) annually getting certificates from all the Govt College
Principals under para 12.3 of CSR-I that service Book has been shown
to the concerned employee.
Prof Jasveer Kaur of GCW Ldh

c/o Lt Col N. K. Ghai (retd)
205-B, Model Town Extn
Encl: Rs10 IPO no. Ludhiana-141002
+ Legal Notice
The PIO/ Principal,

Information under Right to
Information Act:
Thanks for your quick response dt 17July 2010 to my letter dt 10 July 2010
and also for promptly identifying the info asked that too assessing in such a way
that it comes to ROUND Rs.500, for which a bank draft is attached and thus I
hope to get the same within 3 days.
As per the law, also as settled by the Info Commission, any inchoate (left
blank intentionally) financial instrument held by the payee can be completed by
him and the filling in the Payee’s name (amount and date already printed) need
not be insisted, since that was intentionally left blank to avoid fast credit/
collection in the PIO’s account held in any name/ style. Rather, as per the RTI Act,
Rules and Instructions it needs to be filled as ‘Accounts Officer’ of the respective
Office, who may not be the PIO.
I hope more info asked, as per encl appl by attaching same Rs.10 IPO, would also
be promptly dealt.
Pawan Aggarwal
Attachment- Bank Draft for Rs 500 123-E, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana-1
Another u/n RTI-Appl & Rs.10 IPO
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………..
The PIO/ Principal.

Information under
Pl supply all such material from which the authority to collect

& spend money with transparency & fairness including audit/
control can be ascertained i.e,




10 & 2010-11.
Pawan Aggarwal
THE THIRD SCHEDULE (See section 11)
DECLARATION TO BE MADE BY THE BRIDEGROOM
I, A.B.,
I hereby declare as follows:-

1. I am at the present time unmarried (or a widower or a divorcee, as the
case may be).
2. I have completed…………………years of age.
3. I am not related to C.D. (the bride) within the degrees of prohibited
relationship.
4. I am aware that, if any statement in this declaration is false, and
if in making such statement, I either know or believe it to be false or do
not believe it to true. I am liable to imprisonment and also to fine.
(Sd/-) A.B. (the Bridegroom)

DECLARATION TO BE MADE BY HE BRIDE
I, C.D.
I hereby declare as follows;-

1. I am at the present time unmarried (or a widow or a divorcee, as the
case may be).
2. I have completed……………………………………..years of age.
3. I am not related to A.B. (the Bridegroom) within the degrees of
prohibited relationship.
4. I am aware that, if any statement in this declaration is false,
and if in making such statement I either know or believe it to be false or
do not believe it to be true, I am liable to imprisonment and also to fine.
(Sd/-) C.D. (the Bride)
Signed in our presence (Three witness) by the above-named A.B. and

C.D. so far as we are aware there is no lawful impediment to the marriage
(Sd) G.H.
(Sd) I.J
(Sd) K.L.
Countersigned E.F.,
Marriage Officer,
Dated the day of 2010
Ex-Sep Bhupinder Singh c/o Col N.K.Ghai

205-B, Model Town Extn, Ludhiana-141002
21 July 2010
The PIO
HQ 7 Inf Div
Info u/s 6 RTI Act
Sir
Pl refer to your letter No.1741/3/RTI/GS(Edn) dt 13 July 2010 in

response of my letter dt 10 Jun 2010 to 159 MH seeking the dates and
the disease for which my wife [w/o Sep Bhupinder Singh No.10515254 of
152 Inf Bn (TA)SIKH] was admitted/treated/ operated in this MH during/
around June 2003.
The info if not otherwise available, then could have been supplied as
based on the Hospital Admission/ Discharge record.
Encl: Fresh Rs10 IPO No. Ex-Sep Bhupinder Singh

fvg PIO HQ 7 Infantry Division
Copy to: 159 MH … wrt its letter No.423/Misc/M-5/Stats/10 dt 30 Jun 10


the judgment/final order of the Armed Forces
Tribunal,Chandigarh Bench at Chandimandir,dt 19.4.2010 in
T.A. No. 32 of 2010]
SLP(C) No._____of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
INDEX OF FILING
1. SLP with affidavit 1+3 Rs 252
2. Certified copy of Judgment 1+3
3. Memo of Appearance
4.
Note: Spare copies of documents are correct and

true copies of their respectives.
New Delhi:Dt 26July 2010 Petitioner-In-Person

the judgment/final order of the Armed Forces Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, dt 19.04.2010 in T.A. No. 32 of 2010]
SLP(C) No.__ of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
INDEX
SR Page
Particular
1 Office Report on Limitation A
2 List of dates B
3 Certified copy of Impugned Judgment of Armed 1-5
Forces Tribunal in TA No.32/2010 dt 19.4.2010
with Memo of Parties
4 SLP with affidavit 6-13
5 Annx P-1:Copy of CGDA letter dt 19-5-1984 14
6 Annx P-2:Copy of Govt letter dt 26-11-2001 15-16
7 Annx P-3:Copy of Army HQ letter dt 08-5-2002 17-21
8 Annx P-4:Copy of Cdr’s Sanction dt 15-4-2004 22
9 Annx P-5:Copy of Claim for QG dt 07-9-2005 23
10 Annx P-6:Copy of Plaint in suit dt 21-12-2005 24-26
11 Annx P-7:Copy of Written Statement Dt4-4-2006 27-29
12 Annx P-8:copy of Judgment of Trial court dt 30-44
21-1-2009
New Delhi:26 Jul 2010 Petitioner-in-Person

[Under Sec 30(1) of the Armed Forces TribunalAct,2007] against
final judgment the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
dt 19.04.2010 in T.A. No.32/2010]
SLP(C) No._____of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Lt Col N.K.Ghai son of Dyal Chand, aged 59 years,

permanent r/o 205-B Model Town Extn, Ludhiana, the
petitioner do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That the petitioner is conversant with the facts of
the case and has himself drafted this SLP, as such
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That contents of the SLP, List of Dates and the facts
stated therein are true to my knowledge.
3. That the Annexures are true copies of their originals
and formed record before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Facts stated as above are true to my knowledge
Verified at Ludhiana on 21 July 2010 DEPONENT
FREE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.4.2010
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH AT CHANDIMANDIR
T.A. No.32 of 2010 (arising out C.A.No.13 of 2009)
N.K.Ghai ... Appellant
Vs
UOI & Ors .. Respondents

For the appellant: Appellant in person.
For the respondent (s): Mr. Sandeep Bansal, GGC.
T.A. No. 34 of 2010 (arising out C.A. NO.46 of 2009)
Union of India & others ........ Appellants
Vs.
N.K. Ghai ….. Respondent
For the Appellant(s}: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, GC
For the respondent: Mr. N.K. Ghai in person.
ORDER: 19-04-2010
CORAM: Justice Ghanshyam Prasad, Judicial Member
Lt Gen A.S. Bahia (Retd), Administrative Member
GHANSHYAM PRASAD
Both this cases arise out of one and same judgment dated 21-
01-2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patt1ankot in
Civil Suit No.258 of 2005.
The plaintiff-appellant N.K. Ghai filed civil suit

against Union of India and others for claiming Qualification
Grant ( in short 'QG') for completing MBA Course in the light
of Army H.Q letter No.
A/633088/GS/MT-10 dated 26-11-2001 as well as for directing

the defendant-respondents not to recover the amount
Le.Rs.10,000/- already paid to the plaintiff-appellant as
qualifying grant for completion of LL.M. course.
Defendants (Union of India & ors) filed written statement

alleging therein that the plaintiff is not entitled to get
qualification grant for completing MBA course as he had no
five years residual Army Service. It is further alleged that
even at the time of passing of LL.M.
Examination, the petitioner was not legally entitled to

get QG as even at that time he had no five years residual
service which is essential requirement for QG. However, due to
mistake, the same was paid to the plaintiff which is liable to
be recovered from him being illegal.
On the pleadings of the parties the learned lower court
framed as many as six issues. However, the main issue is Issue
No.1.
The learned lower court after examination of various

provisions of Army Rules, Regulations and instructions
ultimately rejected the claim of the plaintiff for payment of
Rs. 10,000/- as Qualification Grant for completion of MBA
Course. However, the learned lower court allowed the prayer of
the plaintiff directing the defendants to refund the recovered
amount of Rs. 10,000/- which had already been paid to him for
completing LL.M. course with interest @ 10% per annum.
Both the parties filed their respective appeals against

the said judgment. The plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No.13 of
2009, while the respondents (Union of India & ors) preferred
Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2009 against the aforesaid judgment.
So far as Civil Appeal NO.13 of 2009 corresponding to TA 32

of 2010 is concerned, after hearing both the learned counsel
for the parties and going through the judgment of the learned
lower Court as well as the relevant instructions of the Army
H.Q. we are of the view that the Court below has rightly
refused the Qualification Grant to the plaintiff-appellant as
he had no five years residual Army service at the time of
passing of MBA exam. He obtained the degree of MBA in the year
2004-05. At that very time the remaining service of the
plaintiff was only 2 years as he was to retire on 1-01-2006.
In view of the instructions of Army H.Q. an individual is
entitled to get Qualifica- tion Grant of Rs.10,000 if he has
minimum 5 years residual service at the time of passing of
exam. Therefore the learned lower Court has rightly rejected
the prayer of the plaintiff-appellant.
So far as CA NO.46 of 2009 corresponding to TA NO.34 of

2010 is concerned, this appeal has also got no merit. The
appellant (UOI) paid the ‘QG' voluntarily to the plaintiff
'under misconception of Rules and Regulations and hence he is
not now entitled to recover the same. The learned lower Court
has rightly relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court
and other High Courts, wherein it has been held that if any
amount was paid erroneously or has been obtained by an
employee without committing any fraud, misrepresentation or
deception, the authority has no power to recover the same. In
the case in hand, admittedly, the plaintiff was paid ‘QG’
after passing LL.M. examination in the year 2003. The amount
has already been spent by the plaintiff in good faith. Under
the circumstances, the Court below has rightly directed the
respondents (UOI & ors) to refund the amount with interest @
10% per annum.
In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion

that no case has been made out by either of the parties to
interfere in the impugned Judgment. .
Accordingly, both the appeals are hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- (Justice Ghanshyam Prasad)
Sd/- (Lt Gen A. S. Bahia (Retd)
FREE COPY UNDER RULE 23 of
AFT (PROCEDURE) RULES 2008"
Sd/-(Section Officer)
26/4/2010
PREPARED BY CHECKED BY
Annexure P-2
No.1(22)/97/D(pay/Services)
Government of India,
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi,
Dated 8th January, 1998
To
The Chief of the Army Staff
The Chief of the Naval Staff
The Chief of the Air Staff
Subject: RECOMMENDATIONS OFTHE FIFTH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION

ON ALLOWANCES/ CONCESSIONS IN RESPECT OF OFFICERS OF THE
ARMY,NAVY& AIR FORCE-IMPLEMENTATION OF
Sir,
1 I am directed to say that consequent on the decisions of

the Government on the recommendations of the Fifth Central
Pay Commission relating to allowances and concessions in
respect of Officers of Army, Navy & Air Force vide
Ministry of Defence Resolution No.1(5)/97/D (Pay/Services)
dt 13 Oct 1997, the President is pleased to sanction
revised rates of allowances/ concessions to the officers
of the three services, where applicable as per Appendix
attached to this letter.
2. The revised rates of the above allowances/ concessions

will be effective from 01 Aug 1997.
3. The existing terms and conditions for grant of allowance-
s/concessions would continue to be applicable in respect of
revised rates notified in the Appendix to this letter. As far
as Flying Allowance, Test Pilot Allowance, Fighter Pilot
Allowance, Submarine Allowance and Siachen Allowance are
concerned further orders may be awaited. This Ministry's
letter No.1(5)/97/D (Pay/Services) dated 21.11.97 regarding
modification of Flying Allowance etc. is held in abeyance.
4 The relevant Rules in Pay & Allcs Regultns for Army,

Navy & Air Force will be suitably amended in due course
5 This letter issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Def

(Finance) vide their U.O No. 18/PA/98 dated 8 Jan 1998.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- (L. T. TLUANGA)

Under Secretary to the Govt of India
Annexure P-3
No.1(26)/97/XXII/D(Pay/Services)
Government of India,Ministry of Defence
New Delhi -110011
Dated 29th February, 2000
To
The Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi
The Chief of the Naval Staff, New Delhi
The Chief of the Air Staff, New Delhi
Subject: Removal of Anomalies arising out of the

Implementation of Revised Pay Scales and Allowances
Consequent to the V CPC Recommendations- Impementation of
Technical Allowance - regarding
Sir,
I am directed to refer to this Ministry’s letter No.

1(22)/97/D(Pay/Services) dt 8.1.1998 and to state that the
issue regarding certain anomalies arising from the
implementation of revised pay scale and allowances
consequent to the V CPC award has been in considered in
the light of the recommendations of a committee specially
constituted on the above subject and it has been decided
that the Technical Allowances to the Technical qualified
officers of the three services will be granted in two
rates ie, Tier-I courses Rs.1000 per month and Tier-II
courses Rs.1500 per month.
2. The Technical Allowance at the rate applicable for

Tier-I courses will be admissible to all officers of the
three services from the date they complete the prescribed
professional Technical Training and are available for full
deployment. While pre-induction professional Technical
Training is prescribed in Navy and Air Force. So for as
the Army is concerned, such training courses will be
identified by the Ministry in consultation with Army
Headquarters.
3. The Tier-II courses for this purpose will be

identified by this Ministry in consultation with Service
HQrs to ensure that such courses enable the officers to
acquire specialization on a particular weapon or system
plateform. Till such time a list of eligible Tier-II
course is finalized, the Technical Allowance will be paid
only at the rate applicable for
Tier-I courses.
4. Technical Allowance for the re-employed officers
will be admissible only when they are actually deployed on
technical and maintenance duties and also fulfill the
prescribed eligibility conditions.
5. This Ministry’ letter No.Air HQ/23956/G/100/PP &R-

1/1376/D(Pay/ Services) dt 14.4.82, No.PA/0262/N 11Q/
3295/D(Pay/Services) dt 9.8.84 and No.30(10)31/D(Pay/
Services) dt 6-11-1984 are hereby superseded with
immediate effect.
6. The relevant rules in Pay & Allowance Regulations for

Army, Navy and Air Force will be suitably amended in due
course.
7. This allowance takes effect from 1st August 1997.
This issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Defence
(Finance)vide their U.O No.1/77/99-PA dt 23-2-2000.
Yours Faithfully
R.K.Grover
Under secretary to the Govt of India

Current

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Current

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)  1236/I, Sector 43-B,

BSc, CAIIB, MBA, LLM Chandigarh-160022

The Registrar General

Non-Fixing for Hearing of Urgent CM No. 22911 regd on

Despite personal reminders to the Astt Registrar, the above Urgent CM

Lt Col N K Ghai (Retd) Advocate

I hope that rightful would be done

In the court of to Mr Barjinder Pal Singh JMIC, Chandigarh

Notice to Resp-4 without summoning order/ Process: illegal

It appears that the Complainant P.S. Sawhney without apprising

regarding (while I was serving as Chief Law Officer in Chandigarh

Housing Board) has mislead this court as under:

(i) Got Notice issued, on merely filing of an application (about

which this respondent is not aware as no copy of the Complaint

Process passed) for impounding/ depositing my Passport, knowing

so: 2008(1) RCR (Crl) 897 SC,

(ii) that too by filing an application in the Complaint in which a stage

even for taking Cognizance or to issue Process/ summons has not

arrived and further by pre-poning of hearing, despite there being no

provision in the Cr.P.C to prepon.

It is prayed that the notice causing harassment to this Senior

Citizen/ Advocate be withdrawn.

Rajinder Ghai, (Resp-4)

Chandigarh; Oct 2010 Advocate, Pb & Hr High Court

The Sessions Judge

On 27 Sep 2010, while I went to Samparak Centre, Sec 43, Chd,

National Consumer Commission, Distt Forum with costs, etc and

Vigilance Deptt (UT) while I was serving as Chief Law Officer in

Chandigarh Housing Board] met me there and threatened by boasting of

unfairly bending the law machinery on applying to Mr Barjinderpal Singh

JMIC, Chd in his Complaint Vs UoI & Ors’ to get --

(i) Notice issued to me, on merely filing of an application for

impounding/ depositing my Passport, knowing fully well that only a

(Crl) 897 SC,

(ii) that too by filing an application in the Complaint in which the

stage even for taking Cognizance or to issue Process/ summons-

issue is yet to come up (in mid- Oct 2010).

I hope some suitable action in the matter.

Chandigarh; 01 Oct 2010 Rajinder Ghai, 1236(1)/43 Chandigarh

Advocate, Pb & Hr High Court

Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)  205- B, Model Town Extn, Ludhiana-2

1. In MA 107/10 vide order of Hon’ AFT Chd dt 29 Sep 2010, ADGTA to be

Payment of pension (Qualifying service on retirement being >15 yrs at time of

5 MA ??/10 in TA 46/10 dt 19 Feb 10: Major S.D.Singh (TA-41899)

Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)

Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)  205- B, Model Town Extn, Ludhiana-2

The General Manager (Ops)

Encl: SB Stt of a/c Lt Col N.K. Ghai (Retd)

Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)  205- B, Model Town Extn

The Managing Director

SB A/c 55026817617 BNC Ludhiana: Faulty System/ Lack of Training to Staff

In 1982, while serving as an officer of this bank, I opened, in BNC Ludhiana

Lt Col N.K. Ghai (Retd)

Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)  205- B, Model Town Extn

TA 367/10 Brig R.S.Sharma v UoI: Pending for 15 Oct 2010

The undersigned, being counsel for the Petitioners in above case,

preferably 25/ 28 Oct 2010.

Lt Col Naresh Ghai (retd) Advocate

Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)  1236/I, Sector 43-B,

The Registrar General

Non-Fixing for Hearing of Urgent CM No. 22910 regd on

Lt Col N K Ghai (Retd) Advocate

Lt Col Naresh Ghai (Retd)  1236/I, Sector 43-B,