WPMS/87/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 113 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                       AT NAINITAL
       ON THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
                              BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

          Writ Petition (M/S) No. 87 of 2022
BETWEEN:
Soban Singh                                                ...Petitioner
      (By Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate)

AND:

Union of India and others                              ...Respondents
      (By Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Standing Counsel for the Union of India)


                           JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing.

2. Petitioner is an Ex-serviceman, who retired from the post of Hawaldar but was designated as honorary Nayab Subedar.

3. Petitioner had made representations to the Army Authorities for grant of Gallantry Award for the act of bravery done by him, during 1965 and 1971-Indo-Pak War. His request for grant of Gallantry Award has been rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated 23.08.2021, on the ground that such awards are conferred within two calendar years from the date on which the act of gallantry is performed. Thus, petitioner's claim has been rejected, on the ground of delay.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, which is a news report, which goes on to say that "one army officer was honoured after 70 years".

5. Perusal of the said news report reveals that the Army Officer concerned was not conferred Gallantry Award, but he was simply honoured by constructing a memorial. Thus, petitioner cannot claim any parity with the said Army Officer, who was honoured, after 70 years as petitioner's claim is for Gallantry Award. Even otherwise also, this Court while exercising power of judicial review cannot direct the Government to confer Gallantry Award to any person and it is for the concerned Authorities to decide, who is entitled for such award.

6. In such view of the matter, this Court declines to entertain this writ petition.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Shubham