AFT puts Col Purohit’s retirement on hold till his promotion plea is heard | India News
New Delhi: In a recall for Colonel (Time Scale) Purohit Prasad Srikanth, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has ordered that his retirement be withheld pending a decision on his statutory complaint for consideration for promotion and other service benefits after his discharge in 2008. Malegaon blast case. He was supposed to retire on March 31.A bench comprising AFT Chairperson Justice Rajendra Menon and administrative member Rasika Chaube passed the order while hearing a plea filed by an army officer seeking promotion to the rank of colonel and then brigadier.Invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the petitioner claimed that he was denied promotion while facing a criminal trial following his arrest in 2008.In its order passed on March 16, the tribunal issued notice to the central government and other respondents, asking them to explain why the order should not be issued to consider the officer’s case for promotion and all ancillary service benefits equally to his batchmates or subordinates.When contacted, an army source told TOI, “The Indian Army will examine the verdict and then take action as per the provisions of the policy.”Explaining the rank of ‘Colonel (Time Scale)’, the source said, “In the service bracket of 15-18 years, lieutenant colonels are considered for promotion (a promotion board). About 30-50% of lieutenant colonels become colonels. The rest remain lieutenant colonels. Once these lieutenant colonels complete 2 years of service and complete 6 years. They are given the rank of colonel (time scale). scale) before 26 years of priestly service. As he was facing disciplinary action and precautionary ban, he was given the rank of Colonel (Time Scale) only after his acquittal.”“Prima facie, we find that a case is made out where the petitioner may be right in contending that he is entitled to be considered for promotion and all other service benefits at par with his juniors, which was denied to him,” AFT observed. It also said that the officer’s claim that he was “implicated in the case in an illegal, fabricated manner” appears to have been founded by the criminal court.The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 22.
