YUDHISTER vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Advocate - Satya Pal Jain (Sr. Adv.) — CWP/793/2024

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 15-Jan-2024

CNR: PHHC010019472024

Filing Number

CWP/725/2024

Filing Date

05-Jan-2024

Registration No

CWP/793/2024

Registration Date

11-Jan-2024

Judge

Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi , Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda

Coram

Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi , Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda

Bench Type

Double

Category

4.11 - ORDERS AGAINST ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL(CIVIL) ( 328 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.YUDHISTER

    Adv. CHETAN SOOD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Advocate - Satya Pal Jain (Sr. Adv.)

  2. 2.CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF

  3. 3.OFFICER IN CHARGE RAJPUR REGIMENTAL CENTRE

  4. 4.COMMANDING OFFICER

  5. 5.THE ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi,mr. Justice Deepak ManchandaView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP/793/2024 Yudhister challenged the Armed Forces Tribunal's order upholding his dismissal from service on desertion charges. During the petition's pendency, the respondents reconsidered and converted the dismissal into discharge vide order dated 17.03.2026, with directions to grant consequential benefits within eight weeks. The High Court disposed of the petition as the petitioner no longer pressed it further, accepting the respondents' undertaking to release all consequential benefits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Jan-2024

    Other

  4. 05-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/793/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP/793/2024 Yudhister challenged the Armed Forces Tribunal's order upholding his dismissal from service on desertion charges. During the petition's pendency, the respondents reconsidered and converted the dismissal into discharge vide order dated 17.03.2026, with directions to grant consequential benefits within eight weeks. The High Court disposed of the petition as the petitioner no longer pressed it further, accepting the respondents' undertaking to release all consequential benefits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case