New Delhi: The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has ordered that the retirement of Colonel Purohit Prasad Shrikant be put on hold until a decision is made on his statutory complaint. The complaint seeks consideration for his promotion and other service benefits following his acquittal in the 2008 Malegaon blast case.
The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has held in abeyance the retirement of Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit
The AFT said that, having gone through the material available on record, particularly, the judgment of the Special Judge NIA Court, Mumbai, dated 31.07.2025, prima facie, we find… pic.twitter.com/SNqApkgqbf
— ANI (@ANI) March 17, 2026
A Bench led by Chairperson Justice Rajendra Menon and Administrative Member Rasika Chaube issued the directive while hearing the officer’s plea, in which he has requested promotion to the rank of Colonel and subsequently Brigadier, in line with his juniors.
Invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the applicant argued that he was denied promotions while he was undergoing a criminal trial following his arrest in 2008.
In its March 16 order, the AFT noted that the officer had remained in custody since 2008 and was granted bail by the Supreme Court on August 21, 2017. He subsequently rejoined duty and has been in service since 2023.
During this period, the trial continued before a special court, which, in its judgment dated July 31, 2025, acquitted him in the 2008 Malegaon blast case after nearly 17 years.
“Prima facie, we find that the applicant has made out a case to contend that he is entitled to consideration for promotion and all other service benefits on par with his juniors, which were denied to him,” the AFT observed.
The Tribunal further observed that the officer’s contention that he had been “illegally and falsely implicated” in the case appeared to have been borne out by the criminal court’s findings while acquitting him.
Taking these circumstances into account, the AFT directed that “pending a decision on the statutory complaint, the applicant’s retirement shall be kept in abeyance.” The Tribunal also issued notice to the Union government and other respondents, asking them to explain why directions should not be issued to consider the officer’s case for promotion and grant of all consequential service benefits on par with his batchmates or juniors. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on May 22.
