1

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

T.A.No.34 of 2009
(W.P.No.20651 of 2001

Wednesday, the Tenth day of February 2010

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

(MEMBER-JUDICIAL)
AND
THE HONOURABLE LT GEN (RETD) S. PATTABHIRAMAN
(MEMBER – ADMINISTRATIVE)

Dr.M.R.Reddy,
Retired Wing Commander,
S/o.Late M.Nadamuni Reddy,
No.27-E, Park Dugar,
Mount Poonamallee Road,
Ramapuram, Chennai89. … Applicant

By Legal Practitioner Mr.S.Natanarajan

Vs.

1.The Station Commander,

State Head Quarters,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.

2.G.O.C. Head Quarters,

ATNKK & G Areas,
Island Grounds, Chennai.

3.Mr.P.P.Mittal, Lt Colonel,
Adm. Comdt.
Station Head Quarters,
Fort St.George, Chennai.

4.Air Force Central Account Officer,

New Delhi.

5.Ministry of Defence
through its Secretary. …. Respondents

By Mr.S.Haja Mohindeen Gisthi, SCGSC,

alongwith JAG Officer Lt Col Sandeep Kumar
 2

ORDER
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan)

The applicant in this application, has filed W.P.No.20651 of 2001

before the Honourable High Court, Madras, which has subsequently been

transferred to this Tribunal, after the formation of Armed Forces Tribunal

under Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and renumbered as T.A.No.34 of

2009.

2.We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner

Mr.S.Natanarajan and the learned Senior Central Government Standing

Counsel Mr.S.Haja Mohindeen Gisthi and also the learned JAG Officer for

the respondents and considered their respective submissions.

3.The averments in the affidavit to the petition filed by the

petitioner in brief sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:-

3(a)The petitioner is an Army Medical Corps Officer and

classified as Specialist in Surgery. He was posted to Military Hospital,

Chennai, from 20th May 1996 to August 1999. He was commissioned in

the Army during 1979 and the Army number given to him was MR 04943.

The petitioner was seconded to Air Force during August 1978 and another

number was given to him as 15928-B. The petitioner was discharging

his duties at Military Hospital at Chennai and on that score he was allotted

family accommodation at P.O.Colony, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai. The

petitioner was transferred to No.5, Air Force Hospital at Jorhat, Assam on

9th August 1999. Till then he was allotted family accommodation by the

1st respondent at P.O.Colony, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai and both his

children were studying in nearby professional College and school. The

 3

petitioner was eligible for seeking Separated Family Accommodation (SFA)

while he was transferred to Jorhat at Assam and as such he requested the

1st respondent to allot him the Separated Family Accommodation at

Nandanam, Chennai. As per the Special Army Orders, which is applicable

to Air Force Officers also, the petitioner was entitled to retain the

accommodation at Chennai, while on transfer to Assam, since that place

of posting is a dangerous area where family need not be taken. The first

respondent asked the petitioner to get in touch with the Air Force to get

his SFA under their wing and gave him two months till November 1999 to

get the same from them. The petitioner had approached the IAF and the

Air Force Administrative Officer sent a letter to the petitioner saying that

no SFA is available with them.

3(b)Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter to the first respondent

dated 21.10.1999 saying that originally he was commissioned as Army

Medical Corps and his personal number given by the Army was AMC MR

04943. The petitioner’s name was also included in the Army List for AMC

Officers and requested for SFA at Nandanam, Chennai-35. The said

accommodation available at Nandanam is not exclusively for Army

Officers, alone. So, the request of the petitioner for SFA at Nandanam was

very much in order. Since the petitioner has not received any reply from

the first respondent, once again he wrote a letter on 16.11.1999 quoting

Special Army Orders SAO 10/S/86, wherein in Paragraph 3, it is

specifically stated that the Rules are applicable to Air Force officers also.

The High Court of Karnataka has held that the Officer should have been

permitted to continue the quarters allotted to him when the said officer

had been transferred from Assam to Tripura in W.P.No.1982 of 2000. In

 4

the mean time the third respondent on 24.12.1999 had written a letter to

the petitioner asking to vacate the Government Accommodation forthwith,

failing which damages would be collected from 1 st December 1999 and

eviction proceedings would follow under the Public Premises Act 1971.

3(c)The Army has in their SAO 10/S/86 in Appendix E declared the

places where separated family accommodation are available to Officers.

The first respondent is driven by the third respondent herein in arriving at

wrong conclusions. The first respondent cited a case at Wellington

dismissing the request of an officer for SFA. Wellington is not included in

the Appendix E provided in SAO 10/S/86 by the Army. Hence, the said

case cannot be cited as precedent for the case of the petitioner.

3(d)Thereafter, the petitioner contacted both the respondents 1 & 2

ie., G.O.C. at Island Grounds, Chennai and explained his plight about his

children’s education and his right to continue to hold the SFA under the

first respondent. But, both the respondents have not helped the

petitioner. The petitioner has received another letter from the first

respondent on 29.07.2000 offering him alternate accommodation in the

General Pool (which is not equivalent to SFA at P.O.Colony, St.Thomas

Mount or Nandanam, Chennai) at NFG, Fort St.George, Chennai. As per

para No.70 of the SAO 10/S/86, a provision is given that no officer should

be asked to shift affecting the studies of their children. The petitioner

wrote a letter on 05.09.2000 once again expressing his difficulties and

about the studies of his children and requested the second respondent

to allot SFA at least at Nandanam during the end of that year i.e, 2000-

2001. The petitioner received another letter from the Additional Director

General of LWE/Q3, Quarter Master General’s Branch, Army Head

 5

Quarters, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi, directing the first respondent to allot

him a separate family accommodation. The same was confirmed by the

Air Head Quarters, Vayu Sena Bhavan, New Delhi, on 13.09.2000 that the

second respondent should provide SFA as requested by the petitioner.

But on 22.01.2000, the petitioner received a letter for debit of damage

rate of rent from the Air Force Central Account Officer, New Delhi, and the

fourth respondent herein demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of

Rs.13,253/- per month from 1st December 1999. It is baseless to claim

damages at abnormal rate when the first respondent is duty bound to

allow the petitioner to continue in the existing accommodation.

3(e)The third respondent in his letter No.1302/50/Q3, dated

19.12.2000, declared the petitioner as unauthorised occupant for house

No.P22/3, P.O.Colony, Chennai-16, in terms of para No.137 of SAO

10/S/86 and placed under damage rate of rent with effect from

1.12.1999. Whereas under the same SAO 10/S/86 in Para No.110 in Part

V read with the Government of India letter dated 12.11.1997, it is

categorically stated that an officer on transfer to Assam and Tripura can

retain married accommodation at his previous station, or be allotted

family accommodation at the station of his posting/choice. The first

respondent through his Barracks Service Officer sent a debit note to the

fourth respondent to deduct and adjust damage rate of rent at an

abnormal rate of Rs.13,253/- per month plus Rs.91/- per month towards

furniture with effect from 1.12.1999. Because of the ill-treatment, insult

and defaming attitude of the respondents 1 & 2 at the instance of the 3 rd

respondent, the petitioner was driven to take an extreme step of

voluntary retirement. The Officer in charge had been kind enough to

 6

accept his application for voluntary retirement and the petitioner was

relieved of his duties with effect from 31.12.2000 afternoon. Therefore,

the petitioner is entitled to all his service terminal benefits forthwith

including pension with effect from the date of his retirement. The

petitioner issued a lawyer’s notice dated 24.3.2001 to the respondents.

Instead of sending a reply to the notice, the third respondent had

contacted the counsel for the petitioner with a direction to the petitioner

to meet him in his office. The respondents have absolutely no right to

delay or deny the disbursement of the petitioner’s service terminal

benefits and his pension. The petitioner received a letter dated

18.12.2000 from Fg.Offr. Adjt for Accounts Officer Central, enclosing a

copy of AFCAO letter No.CAO/10203/15928/OPS/52, dated 22.11.2000.

In the said letter, it has been stated that a debit or damage rate of rent

has been issued against the petitioner claiming rent at the rate of

Rs.13,253/- per month plus Rs.91/- per month towards furniture with

effect from 01.12.1999. The petitioner is not liable to pay any damages

as claimed in the said communication. The petitioner is not an

unauthorised occupant of the Quarters in question, which was allotted to

him by the respondents legally. Hence, the petition to set aside the debit

made by the first respondent in his letter vide AFCAO

No.CAO/10203/15928/OPS/52, dated 22.11.2000 communicated to the

petitioner by fourth respondent with a direction to pay the petitioner’s

service terminal benefits forthwith. Hence, the petition.

4.The respondents have filed a common counter contending that

when the petitioner was transferred as a Medical Officer to the Military

 7

Hospital, Chennai on 20.05.1996, he was attached with Army Pool. So a

house was allotted to him at Post Office Colony, St. Thomas Mount,

Chennai – 16. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Air Force

Hospital at Jorhat, Assam, on 9 th August, 1999. Consequent on his

transfer, the petitioner has to vacate the family accommodation provided

to him at Post Office Colony, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 16. Instead of

vacating the family accommodation, the petitioner had sought for

allotment of ‘Separated Family Accommodation’ at Chennai. Since there is

no provision for allotment of Separated Family Accommodation (SFA) to

officers posted to Air Force Unit in Special Army Order 10/S/86, the first

respondent in his letter No.1302/50/Q3 dated 27.09.1999 addressed to

Headquarters Andhra, Tamilnadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Goa Area

(Quarter Master General’s Branch), Air Force Station, Tambaram, for

clarification. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was permitted to retain

family accommodation till receipt of clarification. On 29.09.1999, the first

respondent was clarified that the Separated Family Accommodation

specifically built for Army personnel is not available to persons of other

services and further the first respondent was directed to advice the

petitioner to contact Air Force Station, Tambaram for provision of

Separated Family Accommodation. As per this direction, the first

respondent forwarded a letter to the petitioner on 05.10.1999.

Simultaneously, the petitioner was also directed to vacate the family

accommodation on 01.12.1999 as he had already occupied it for more

than four months and thereby denying the entitlement of accommodation

to a relief officer posted to Military Hospital Chennai in petitioner’s

appointment.
 8

4(a)Since the petitioner has not vacated the family accommodation

as requested, he was declared as an unauthorised occupant by Station

Quartering Committee in respect of house at Post Office Colony with effect

from 01.12.1999 and placed under damage rate of rent by the Station

Quarters Committee in the meeting held on 03.12.1999. In the

meanwhile, Headquarters Andhra, Tamilnadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Goa

Area, had referred the petitioner’s request to Headquarters Southern

Command and the Headquarters Southern Command in its letter

No.100200/Q3 dated 18.12.1999, had confirmed the non-entitlement for

allotment of ‘Separated Family Accommodation’ to the petitioner from

Army Pool of Accommodation. The petitioner was posted to an Air Force

Hospital and so he can claim Family Accommodation from Air Force

Station at Tambaram alone. The Headquarters Southern Command’s

clarification was also intimated to the petitioner vide letter

No.1302/50/QW3 dated 24.12.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner

approached the Air Force Headquarters for allotment of ‘Separated Family

Accommodation’ in Chennai. The Headquarters Southern Command had

subsequently advised to provide alternative accommodation to the officer.

Based on the Headquarters Southern Command clarification, the Station

Quartering Committee in its meeting held on 28.07.2000 allotted an

alternative accommodation of House No.P-12/4, New Fort Glacis, Chennai

– 09 to the petitioner and the same was intimated to him in the office

letter No.1301/56/Q3 dated 29.07.2000. Despite granting 50 days to

avail the alternative accommodation, the petitioner has not availed the

alternative accommodation provided to him. In the meanwhile, he applied

 9

for voluntary retirement and he was relieved from service w.e.f.

31.12.2000.

4(b)Since the petitioner was not eligible for Separated Family

Accommodation and had failed to vacate the family accommodation, he

was placed on damage rate of rent in terms of paragraph 137 of Special

Army Order 10/S/86. Subsequently, the petitioner retired from service

voluntarily on 31.12.2000 but he did not intimate the same to the

respondents 1 to 3. Pursuant to his voluntary retirement, the 4 th

respondent had sought for No Demand Certificate for settlement of his

service terminal benefits. Since the petitioner was already declared as an

unauthorised occupant in respect of family accommodation occupied by

him, the Barracks Service Officer had sent a Debit Note to the 4 th

respondent to deduct and adjust the damage rate of rent as demanded

from 01.12.1999.

4(c) It is pertinent to point out here that even in the Government of

India’s letter dated 12.11.1997 relied on by the petitioner herein stated

that retention of family accommodation at the previous duty station can

be made only with the permission of the Station Commander or the

Allotting Authority. Here in the present case, the Station Commander or

the Allotting Authority did not grant such permission. Hence the

petitioner can not retain the family accommodation as a matter of right.

Since the petitioner was transferred to Air Force Hospital, he has to seek

Separated Family Accommodation from Air Force Station, Tambaram only.

The petitioner was intimated about his ineligibility to have a Separated

Family Accommodation at Chennai in the Station Headquarters letter

No.1301/50/Q dated 28.10.1999 and 24.12.1999. The third respondent

 10

has performed his duty by intimating the decision taken in the Station

Quartering Committee Meeting held on 03.12.1999. The petitioner is not

entitled to retention of accommodation on the ground of Children

Education as per Army Headquarters letter No.22389/Q3(b1) dated

07.06.1999. The petitioner was intimated by the Station Headquarters,

Chennai, vide letter No.1301/56/Q3 dated 29.07.2000 about the allotment

of an alternative family accommodation to the petitioner. But he failed to

take over the alternative family accommodation at New Fort Glacis,

Chennai – 09. The lawyer Notice sent by the petitioner was suitably

replied by the third respondent. The petitioner’s occupation of

family accommodation at Chennai was declared as unauthorised one by

the Station Quartering Committee and so he is liable to pay the damage

rate of rent for the unauthorised occupation. Such a levy of damage rate

of rent is perfectly in order as per para 137 of Special Army Order

10/S/86. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.Now the point for determination in this petition is whether the

claim made by the first respondent through his letter vide AFCAO

No.CAO/10203/15928/OPS/52, dated 22.11.2000, as directed by the

fourth respondent, is liable to be set aside as prayed for?

6.POINT:- The admitted facts are that the petitioner was in Army

Medical Corps as a Specialist in Surgery and was working in Military

Hospital, Chennai, from 20th May 1996 to August 1999 and that he was

allotted a Family Accommodation by the respondent at P.O.Colony, St

Thomas Mount, Chennai. Thereafter, on 9 th August 1999 the petitioner

 11

was transferred to No.5, Air Force Hospital at Jorhat, Assam. Since the

petitioner could not take his family consisting of his wife and two

children, one college going and another school going, to Assam, the

petitioner on the basis of the SAO 10/S/86 para 110 asked for allotting

another alternative accommodation to him at Nandanam Army Quarters

(SFA).

6(a)According to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to

retain the Family Accommodation allotted to him at P.O.Colony, St

Thomas Mount, Chennai, after his transfer to Assam, since SAO 10/S/86

will not be applicable to him since he has been transferred to Air Force

Hospital at Jorhat, Assam from Military Hospital, Chennai.

6(b)The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

Mr.S.Natanarajan, has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to Rule 3 of

SAO 10/S/86 and would contend that the SAO 10/S/86 will be applicable

to the petitioner also even though he has been transferred to Air Force

Service at Jorhat, Assam. Rule 3 of SAO 10/S/86 reads as follows:-

“These rules will apply to:-

(a)All Commissioned Officers of the Army,

(b)Nursing Officers of the Military Nursing Service (Regular)

(c)All Commissioned Officers of the Navy

(d)All Air Force Officers”

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

provision under the Special Army Order will be applicable to the petitioner

also.

6(c)Now the moot point to be decided in this petition is whether the

petitioner is entitled to retain his allotted Family Accommodation at

 12

P.O.Colony, St Thomas Mount, Chennai, even after his transfer to Air

Force Hospital at Jorhat, Assam, after 9th August 1999?

6(d)Taking through Rule 110 of SAO, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner would contend that the Officers posted to Field Service

areas have the following option_

(a)Send their families at Government expense to a selected place of

residence: or

(b)Select any one of the separated family station listed Appendix E

for hiring of accommodation for separated families or to stations where

accommodation has been specifically constructed for them and to move

the family to that station at Government expense: or

(c)To retain family accommodation at the last duty station with the

permission of the Station Commander or the allotting authority.

Taking shelter under Rule 110(c) of SAO, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is entitled to retain the

Family Accommodation allotted to him at P.O.Colony, St Thomas Mount,

Chennai, even after his transfer to Air Force Hospital at Jorhat, Assam.

Through his letter dated 16th September 1999 the petitioner has

requested the Station Headquarter, Fort St George, Chennai, that he is

eligible to reside in the Family Accommodation allotted to him and has

requested to permit him to retain his present accommodation No.22/3,

P.O.Colony, St Thomas Mount, Chennai, till such time a suitable separated

family quarter as per his status is allotted to him in Chennai. The said

letter was also forwarded to Station Headquarter, Fort St George,

 13

Chennai, with his recommendation by Wing Commander / Officiating

Commanding Officer.

6(e)The learned JAG Officer would object to this letter on the

ground that as provided under Para 110 of SAO no permission was

granted by the Station Commander or the allotting authority to the

petitioner to retain his family accommodation at P.O.Colony, St Thomas

Mount, Chennai. But it is seen from the order of the Station Commander,

Headquarters, Fort St George, dated 5 th October 1999, the Station

Commander, Chennai, has accorded sanction to the petitioner to retain his

house No.22/3, P.O. Colony, St Thomas Mount, Chennai, for a period of

two months with effect from 1st October 1999 to 30th November 1999 in

order to enable the Officer to make arrangements for shifting his family

within the stipulated period. It is seen from the records available before

this Tribunal that the petitioner could not vacate the said premises at

No.22/3, P.O.Colony, St Thomas Mount, Chennai, on or before 30 th

November 1999. Since the petitioner could not vacate the said premises

before 30th November 1999, he received a letter from the Station

Commander, Station Headquarter, Fort St George, Chennai, dated 25 th

October 1999, requesting the petitioner to vacate and handover vacant

possession of the said premises by 1 st December 1999. The petitioner

approached the Station Headquarter, Fort St George, Chennai, for

allotting alternative accommodation for SFA in Chennai at Nandanam.

That letter was also forwarded by Air Force Officers Commanding with his

recommendation.
 14

6(f)The request of the petitioner for alternative accommodation

(SFA) at Nandanam was not acceded by the respondents. But to his

dismay, the petitioner has received a letter from the Station Commander,

Station Headquarter, Fort St George, Chennai, dated 29 th December 1999

stating that as per the decision of the Headquarter, Southern Command /

HQ ATNKK & G Area, the petitioner has to vacate the government

accommodation allotted to him already and is liable to pay the damages

at the rate of Rs.95/- per month with effect from 1 st December 1999.

Further the letter of the Administrative Commandant for Station

Commander, Fort St George, dated 19 th December 2000, reads that the

petitioner has been declared as an unauthorised occupant in No.22/3,

P.O.Colony, St Thomas Mount, Chennai, in terms of para 137 of SAO

10/S/86 and placed under damage rent with effect from 1 st December

1999 and it further reads that the petitioner is not entitled to retain the

said accommodation for a period of two months with effect from 1 st

December 2000. Para 137 of SAO runs as follows:-

“Unauthorised Retention of Accommodation:- Where married

accommodation is available at the station of posting of the officer

but the officer retains married accommodation at the old duty

station for his own convenience except when otherwise

specifically permitted by the competent authority under the

prescribed rules or if the officer retains the accommodation

unauthorisedly beyond the permissible period, the officer will be

charged rent for Government accommodation under para 14(b) of

Quartering Regulations, ie., assessed rent or market rent,

whichever is more. In the case of hired accommodation, the

 15

rental liability of the officer will be the rent paid by Government to

the landlord plus 10 per cent service charges. The officer is also

liable to disciplinary action for unauthorised occupation of

Government accommodation.”

There is no material placed before this Tribunal to show that due to

unauthorised occupation of the quarters at No.22/3, P.O.Colony, St

Thomas Mount, Chennai, the petitioner faced disciplinary action. On the

other hand, the petitioner was offered alternative accommodation at

No.P12/4, New Fort Glacis, Chennai, but not the Family Accommodation

available at Nandanam claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner wants to

retain his family accommodation at No.22/3, P.O.Colony, St Thomas

Mount, Chennai on the ground of education to his children in both the

college and school in which his children respectively were studying is

nearer to the Family Accommodation at No.22/3, P.O.Colony, St Thomas

Mount, Chennai and also nearer to the SFA, Nandanam. But there is no

reason given by the respondents for not allotting the Family

Accommodation at SFA, Nandanam. Since the petitioner could not shift

his family to the new accommodation offered to him at P12/4, New Fort

Glacis, Chennai on the ground that the educational institutions in which

his children were studying are far away from the said accommodation,

and hence, he could not accept the offer of the respondents.

6(g)The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been charged

towards damages for occupying family accommodation at P.O.Colony, St

Thomas Mount, Chennai, at the rate of Rs.13,253/- per month plus

Rs.91/- per month towards furniture is arbitrary and not based on any
 16

relevant Rule or Order. Even though the letter dated 29 th December 1999

from the Administrative Commandant for Station Commandant, Fort St

George, Chennai, the damage of rent at the rate of Rs.95/- pm with

effect from 1st December 1999 has been mentioned, the letter dated 22 nd

November 2000 from AFCAO, (Air Force Central Account Office) reads that

the petitioner is liable to pay damages for his unauthorised occupation of

the family accommodation at P.O.Colony, Chennai, for the period from

1.12.1999 onwards at the rate of Rs.13,253/- pm plus Rs.91/- pm

towards furniture. We are of the considered view that the damages

claimed for the extended occupation of the petitioner from 1.12.1999 for

the house at P.O.Colony, Chennai, at the rate of Rs.13,253/- pm plus

Rs.91/- pm for furniture is against the canons of natural justice. Even if

the petitioner has committed any default, We are of the view that he is

liable to pay only a nominal rate of damages at the rate of Rs.95/- pm

with effect from 1st December 1999 as per the letter dated 29.12.1999

emanated from the Administrative Commandant for Station Commandant,

Station Headquarters, Fort St George, Chennai.

6(h)The learned JAG Officer vehemently would contend that the

petitioner is liable to pay the rent and damages not only for Family

Accommodation at P.O.Colony, Chennai, but also for the family

accommodation at P12/4, New Fort Glacis, Chennai. But there is

absolutely no material placed before this Tribunal to show that the other

accommodation at House No.P12/4, New Fort Glacis, Chennai, was

occupied at any point of time by the petitioner. Further, it is also not

known whether it has been subsequently allotted to any other person.

 17

7.In fine, the petition is disposed of under the following terms:-

The petitioner is liable to pay the rent for his Family Accommodation at

P.O.Colony, Chennai, at the nominal rate of rent per month as he was

paying before plus the damages at the rate of Rs.95/- pm with effect from

1st December 1999 till the date on which he vacated the premises. On

any score, the terminal benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to shall

not be detained by the respondents. We make it clear that the arrears of

rent as stated above can be deducted from the terminal dues due to the

petitioner. The learned JAG Officer would represent at this juncture that

already from the terminal benefits the damages have been deducted at

the rate of Rs.13,253/- pm plus Rs.91/- pm towards furniture. If it is so,

the balance due to the petitioner shall be returned to the petitioner after

deducting the due rent as mentioned above plus damages at the rate of

Rs.95/- pm. The petitioner is not entitled for any interest. No Costs. We

record with appreciation the valuable services rendered by the learned

JAG Officer Lt Col Sandeep Kumar and the learned Counsel for the

petitioner Mr.S.Natanarajan.

Justice ACA Adityan Lt Gen (Retd) S.Pattabhiraman

M(J) M(A)
10.02.2010
 18

JUSTICE ACA ADITYAN – M(J)

AND
LT GEN (RETD) S.PATTABHIRAMAN – M(A)

To,
1.The Station Commander,
State Head Quarters,
Fort St. George, Chennai.

2.G.O.C. Head Quarters,

ATNKK & G Areas,
Island Grounds, Chennai.

3.Mr.P.P.Mittal, Lt Colonel,
Adm. Comdt.
Station Head Quarters,
Fort St.George, Chennai.

4.Air Force Central Account Officer,

New Delhi.

5. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.

6. Mr.S.Natanarajan, (Advocate for the petitioner)

7.Mr.S.Haja Mohindeen Gisthi, SCGSC.

8.The JAG Officer,

ATNK & K Area Head Quarters,
Chennai.

T.A.No.34 of 2009
(W.P.No.20651 of 2001

10.02.2010