Delhi High Court
Shivani Kaushik vs Indian Air Force on 7 July, 2020
$~VC-2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07th July, 2020
+ WP (C) 3987/2020
SHIVANI KAUSHIK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Advocate.
versus
INDIAN AIR FORCE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, Sr.
Panel Counsel with Mr. Prajesh
V.S., Advocate for respondents
No.1 & 2 & Wing Commander
Shailesh Sharma.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
%
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
W.P. (C) No. 3987/2020
1. The petitioner, being the wife of respondent No.3 Pankaj
Kumar Sharma, a Corporal in the respondents No.1 and 2 Air
Force, has filed this petition averring that though respondent No.1
in exercise of powers under Section 92 (I) of Air Force Act, 1950
read with Rule 162 of the Air Force Rules, 1950 has directed
W.P. (C) No. 3987/2020 Page 1 of 4
maintenance of Rs.11,800/- per month to be remitted to the
petitioner out of emoluments/salary payable to respondent No.3,
with effect from the month of March, 2020 but no payment has
been made by the respondent No. 2 Senior Accounts Officer, Air
Force Central Account Office, New Delhi till now and seeking a
direction for compliance by the respondent No. 2, of the order qua
payment of maintenance and which order, on enquiry is stated to
be not under challenge in any proceeding.
2. The counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 appearing on
advance notice states that as per the instructions received by him, a
sum of Rs.11,800/- per month for the months of March and April,
2020 was sent to the petitioner by cheque and payments for the
months of April, May and June, 2020 have also been made through
Cheque/NEFT/ bank transfer.
3. Counsel for the petitioner states that after filing of the
present writ petition, only one payment of Rs.11,800/- has been
received in the bank account of the petitioner by bank transfer and
the cheques/payments for the other months have not been received.
4. Since the respondents No.1 and 2, against whom the relief
claimed in the writ petition is directed, have not opposed the writ
petition and have rather stated that the payments demanded have
already been made, it is not deemed necessary to issue notice to
respondent No.3.
5. We however make it clear that this order shall not affect the
W.P. (C) No. 3987/2020 Page 2 of 4
rights under the law of respondent No.3 in any manner whatsoever.
6. There appears to be a loss in transit of the payments for the
months of March, 2020 to May, 2020, stated to have been sent by
respondents No.1 and 2 to the petitioner vide cheques.
7. The writ petition is disposed of by directing:
(i) The petitioner to, on or before 14th July, 2020,
encash the cheques if any, received by her till
14th July, 2020.
(ii) The petitioner to, on 14th July, 2020, at 1700 hrs
or thereafter, email to the respondent No.2 at
[email protected], whether she has received
any cheques or if she has received any other
payments besides the one of Rs.11,800/-, today
stated to have been already credited to her
account.
(iii) The respondent No.2 to, on receipt of the said
email, stop payment of the cheques stated to
have been earlier issued, if not encashed till
then, and on or before 30th July, 2020,
electronically transfer to the account of the
petitioner, the payment, if any due for the
months of March, 2020 till May, 2020.
(iv) Unless there is any interference with the order
W.P. (C) No. 3987/2020 Page 3 of 4
directing such payment of maintenance to the
petitioner, the respondent No. 2 to, in future,
also continue to electronically remit the
payment regularly.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
JULY 07, 2020
ck
