Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of Surgeon Rear Admiral Manisha Jaiprakash vs Union of India & Ors , an appeal was filed by the appellant in the Supreme Court of India challenging the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal. In this case The Appellant was commissioned in the Indian Army as a Lieutenant in the year 1975. She was promoted as a Brigadier on 05.12.2005 and as Rear Admiral/ Major General on 24.11.2007. The Appellant retired as Surgeon Rear Admiral on 31.05.2012. As she was not promoted as Surgeon Vice Admiral, she filed a statutory complaint on 15.07.2010 seeking certain reliefs. But By an order by the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 02.09.2011, the statutory complaint made by the appellant was disposed of by giving partial relief to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the partial redressal of grievance, the Appellant filed O.A. No.19/ 2011 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai which was dismissed by the impugned order. The Appellant filed an appeal in the supreme court challenging the validity of the order of the Tribunal. The supreme Court after hearing the case held “Though we find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant that the Navy Order (Spl.) 02/ 2009 should not have been made applicable for Confidential Reports which were initiated prior to 01.01.2010, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of Tribunal for the following reason:
The Confidential Reports for the years 2006 and 2009 along with the grading given to the Appellant have been examined by us. Even if the ACRs of 2006 and 2009 were not technically invalid, the Appellant is not entitled for any relief as she would not have been promoted due to her comparative merit. The Appellant will not stand to gain even if the endorsement made by the reporting officer as head of service for the CRs of 2006 and 2009 are taken from consideration. We are convinced that the Tribunal was right in holding that no prejudice is caused to the Appellant by applying Navy Order (Spl.) 02/ 2009. Violation of every provision does not furnish a ground for the Court to interfere unless the affected person demonstrates prejudice caused to him by such violation. [See: State Bank of Patiala & Ors. v. S.K. Sharma1 and Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. & Ors.2] For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeals are dismissed.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824