AFT puts on hold the retirement of Colonel Purohit until his request for promotion is heard

NEW DELHI: In a reprieve (time scale) for Colonel Purohit Prasad Shrikant, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) directed that his retirement be put on hold till a decision on his statutory complaint seeking promotion and other service benefits following his acquittal in 2008. Malegaon blast. He was scheduled to retire on March 31.A bench comprising AFT chairman Justice Rajendra Menon and executive member Rasika Chaube passed the order while hearing the plea of ​​an Army officer seeking promotion to the rank of Colonel and subsequently to Brigadier General.Invoking the jurisdiction of the court under section 14 of the Armed Forces Courts Act 2007, the complainant argued that he was denied promotion when he faced a criminal trial following his arrest in 2008.In the order passed on March 16, the court issued notice to the Union government and other defendants, asking them to explain why directions should not be issued to consider the officer for promotion and all consequential service benefits at par with his colleagues or subordinates.When contacted by TOI, an Army source said, “The Indian Army will review the verdict and then take action as per policy provisions.”Explaining the rank of ‘Colonel (Timescale)’, sources said, “Within 15-18 years of service, Lieutenant Colonels are considered for promotion (by promotion boards). Around 30-50% of Lieutenant Colonels become Colonels. The rest continue as Lieutenant Colonels. Once these Lieutenant Colonels complete 26 years of service and have impeccable service (record), they are awarded the rank of Colonel.” (Timescale) Purohit has served for 26 years. As he faced disciplinary action and a guard ban, he was only awarded the rank of Colonel (time grade) after his acquittal. ““On the face of it, we consider that the applicant may be correct in his assertion that he was entitled to be considered for promotion and all other service benefits on an equal footing with his juniors but that he was refused,” the AFT commented. The report also said the officer’s claim that he was “involved in the case in an unlawful and fabricated manner” appeared to have been confirmed by the Crown Court.The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 22.