Delhi High Court
Wg Cdr Ujjwala Shaligram & Ors vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors on 23 May, 2011
Author: G. S. Sistani
21-27 & 78.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 628/2010
% Judgment Delivered on: 23.05.2011
WG CDR UJJWALA SHALIGRAM & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and
Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs.
versus
PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 731/2010
SQ LDR AJITA VARGHESE & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and
Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs.
versus
PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 832/2010
SQN LEADER KAMNA KHATRI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. D.K. Monga, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI.
+ CONT.CAS(C) 855/2010
BABITA PUNIYA ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and
Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 43/2011
SQ LDR NEHA PURI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and
Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs.
CONT.CAS(C) 628/2010, CONT.CAS(C) 731/2010,
CONT.CAS(C) 832/2010, CONT.CAS(C) 855/2010,
CONT.CAS(C) 43/2011, CONT.CAS(C) 161/2011,
CONT.CAS(C) 248/2011, CONT.CAS(C) 346/2011 Page 1 of 4
versus
PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 161/2011
SQ LDR PRANAV SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and
Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs.
versus
AIR CHIEF MARSHAL PV NAIK & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI
Mr. Ravinder Agarwal and Mr. Nitish Gupta,
Advs. for respondent Air Force.
+ CONT.CAS(C) 248/2011
NAMITA ANAND SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and
Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs.
versus
PV NAIK & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 346/2011
SQ LDR FAHEEMA AFZAL & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and
Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs.
versus
AIR CHIEF MARSHAL PV NAIK & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
CONT.CAS(C) 628/2010, CONT.CAS(C) 731/2010,
CONT.CAS(C) 832/2010, CONT.CAS(C) 855/2010,
CONT.CAS(C) 43/2011, CONT.CAS(C) 161/2011,
CONT.CAS(C) 248/2011, CONT.CAS(C) 346/2011 Page 2 of 4
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondent UOI,
submits that present contempt petitions be dismissed as
infructuous in view of the fact that on 23.5.2011 following order has
been passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)
4830/2010:
"1. Learned counsel for the respondents states that on
22.05.2011 the Hon'ble Minister for Defence has accorded
approval to grant permanent commission to short serving
commission female officers in certain wings of the Air Force who
were commissioned prior to 25.05.2006 but upon certain terms
and conditions and that the writ petitioners of the above captioned
writ petitions would be covered by the decision taken thereby
making them eligible to be considered for grant of permanent
commission as per the policy framed which would require the
officers to be appraised for their assessment to determine whether
they meet the qualitative requirements of the service and for
which they would be considered by a Board so constituted.
2. We note that the policy decision taken, vide para 13 thereof,
envisages extension of tenure of short service commission officers
who were due for retirement; extended tenure would be the period
they would otherwise superannuate till their appraisal is done by
the Board and final decision taken.
3. Thus, the aforesaid two writ petitions stand disposed of
directing respondents to grant extension of tenure to such officers
who are likely to retire before the Board appraisal takes place and
formal orders are issued. Further directions are issued to constitute
the Board within a reasonable time and appraise the writ
petitioners in accordance with the policy for grant of permanent
commission in the Indian Air Force."
2. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondent UOI, further
submits that he has instructions to state that the order passed by a
Division Bench of this Court shall be complied with within three
months from today. Respondent UOI shall be bound by the
statement made by counsel in Court today.
CONT.CAS(C) 628/2010, CONT.CAS(C) 731/2010,
CONT.CAS(C) 832/2010, CONT.CAS(C) 855/2010,
CONT.CAS(C) 43/2011, CONT.CAS(C) 161/2011,
3. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for respondent UOI, however,
submits that petitioner no.8 in CONT.CAS(C)NO.855/2010 cannot be
given benefit of the order of the Division Bench and the statement
made in Court today.
4. Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel for the petitioners in
Cont.Cas(C)No.855/2010 submits that she also does not press the
contempt petition qua petitioner no.8, however, seeks liberty to
take appropriate remedy, which may be available in accordance
with law.
5. Accordingly contempt petitions stand dismissed as infructuous as
the respondents have agreed to comply with the order of the
Division Bench. Liberty, as prayed, qua petitioner no.8 in
Cont.Cas(C)No.855/2010, is granted.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
MAY 23, 2011
'msr'
CONT.CAS(C) 628/2010, CONT.CAS(C) 731/2010,
CONT.CAS(C) 832/2010, CONT.CAS(C) 855/2010,
CONT.CAS(C) 43/2011, CONT.CAS(C) 161/2011,
