HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2002/2025 1. Union of India Th. Its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 2. Director General OF Artillery (Artillery-10), General Staff Branch, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Army), DHQ PO, New Delhi-110001. 3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211014. 4. OIC Records, DSC Recrods, PIN-901277, c/o 56 APO. …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Sr. Advocate (DSGI) with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC. Vs. No. 2477735K Ex Lance Naik Bhushan Lal, S/o Shri Punjab Singh, R/o Village & Post Office: Sarh, Tehsil Mohore, District Reasi-182315 .…. Respondent(s) Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 30.09.2025 Sanjeev Kumar J 1. Impugned in this petition is an order and judgment dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu [“hereinafter after referred to as “the Tribunal”] in OA No. 165/2021, whereby the Tribunal has issued a direction to the petitioners herein to consider the case of the respondent for grant of benefit of 1st MACP as soon as instructions/guidelines are received from the competent authority and communicate the decision to the applicant accordingly. This order, as is apparent from its mere reading, has been passed with the consent of the parties. Serial No. 18 2 WP(C) No. 2002/2025 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned does not determine the rights of the parties and rather leaves it to the petitioners to take a decision for grant of benefit of 1st MACP in favour of the respondent as per the instructions and the guidelines received from the competent authority. 3. The petitioners are only obliged to communicate a decision to the respondent. In view of the fact that the directions passed are only innocuous and do not determine the rights of the parties and also having regard to the fact that the petition was disposed of with the consent of the parties, we are not inclined to interfere. 4. The petition is found devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected applications, if any. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge Jammu 30.09.2025 Diksha Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No