Kamal Ghorui
NEW DELHI: In a reprieve for Colonel (time scale) Purohit Prasad Shrikant, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has directed that his retirement be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on his statutory complaint seeking consideration for promotion and other service benefits following his acquittal in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. He was due to retire on Mar 31.A bench comprising AFT chairperson Justice Rajendra Menon and administrative member Rasika Chaube passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the Army officer seeking promotion to the rank of Colonel and thereafter to Brigadier.Invoking the jurisdiction of the tribunal under Section 14 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the applicant contended that he was denied promotions while facing a criminal trial after his arrest in 2008.In its order passed on Mar 16, the tribunal issued notice to the Union govt and other respondents, asking them to explain as to why directives should not be issued to consider the officer’s case for promotion and grant of all consequential service benefits on a par with his batchmates or subordinates.On being contacted, a source in the Army told TOI, “Indian Army will examine the judgment and thereafter take action as per policy provisions.”Explaining the ‘Colonel (time scale)’ rank, the source said, “In the service bracket of 15-18 years, Lt Colonels are considered for promotion (by a promotion board). Around 30-50% of Lt Colonels become Colonels. The rest of them stay as Lt Colonels. Once these Lt Colonels complete 26 years of service and also have an impeccable service (record), they are given the rank of Colonel (time scale). Purohit completed 26 years of service long back. Since he was facing disciplinary action and vigilance ban, he was given the Colonel (time scale) rank only after his acquittal.”“Prima facie, we find that a case is made out where the applicant may be right in contending that he is entitled to be considered for the grant of promotion and all other service benefits at par with his juniors, which were denied to him,” the AFT observed. It further said that the officer’s claim that he was “implicated in the case in an illegal, fabricated manner” appeared to have been established by the criminal court.The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 22.
