Delhi High Court
Col Ts Ajay Sangwan vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 July, 2020
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15th July, 2020
+ W.P. (C) 4138/2020
COL (TS) AJAY SANGWAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
CGSC with Mr.Varun Kishore,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
C.M. Appls.14840/2020 & 14841/2020 (Exemption from filing
original/clear/certified/official translated/typed copies of the
documents and from filing attested affidavits and requisite
court fees)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per the extant
rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
W.P. (C) 4138/2020
3. The petition impugns the order dated 3rd July, 2020 of the
Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in O.A.
W.P. (C) 4138/2020 Page 1 of 4
726/2020, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for interim relief
and on the request of the counsel for the petitioner that he wanted
to file some additional documents, posting the O.A. for 'admission'
on 24th July, 2020.
4. The O.A. aforesaid has been preferred by the petitioner
against the orders dated 15th June, 2020 and 17th June, 2020 of the
respondents of premature retirement of the petitioner, a Colonel
(Time-Scale) in the Army, with further direction for the petitioner
to be relieved by 16th July, 2020.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that since by
24th July, 2020, when the matter is listed next before the AFT, the
petitioner, due to be relieved by 16th July, 2020, would have stood
relieved by then, making the OA infructuous.
6. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, the
irreversible injury which would be suffered by the petitioner on
being so relieved on 16th July, 2020 and which cannot be undone in
the final order in the O.A. filed by the petitioner before the AFT.
7. The counsel for the petitioner states that once the petitioner
is relieved, it will be very difficult to restore him.
8. We are unable to agree.
9. There are a large number of orders/judgments of the courts
as well as of AFT, undoing what has happened in the interregnum
W.P. (C) 4138/2020 Page 2 of 4
between the filing of the proceedings and the passing of the final
order in the said proceedings.
10. Moreover, it cannot be forgotten that the adjournment before
the AFT on the date of the impugned order, i.e., 3 rd July, 2020, was
on the request of the counsel for the petitioner, to file additional
documents.
11. We may notice that the petitioner had earlier filed O.A.
No.988/2019 before the AFT, against the order dated 5th April,
2019 prematurely retiring the petitioner on his request and during
the pendency of the said OA, there was a interim stay and vide
final order dated 6th January, 2020 in the said O.A., the order of
premature retirement of the petitioner was set aside, with direction
to reconsider the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of his
application for premature retirement and conferring certain other
benefits on the petitioner. The respondents, now after reconsidering
the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of his request for
premature retirement, vide order dated 15th June 2020, rejected the
request of the petitioner for withdrawal of his application for
premature retirement. It is in this context that the AFT, in the
impugned order has prima facie observed that the principles of
constructive res-judicata apply and no case for grant of interim
relief sought even before admission of OA by the AFT was made
out.
12. Once the essential ingredient of irreparable injury and
balance of convenience, for grant of interim relief is not satisfied, it
W.P. (C) 4138/2020 Page 3 of 4
cannot be said that there is any illegality or perversity in the
impugned order of the AFT declining interim relief sought by the
petitioner.
13. The counsel for the petitioner, on his request, has also been
permitted to argue at length on the merits of his case in O.A.
No.726/2020 pending before the AFT. However, since the matter is
still pending before the AFT, we refrain from dealing with the said
arguments.
14. The counsel for the petitioner states that he will be satisfied
if it is recorded that the AFT, while hearing the petitioner on 24th
July, 2020 or on any other date to which the matter is deferred, will
not be swayed by the prima facie view on the basis on which
interim relief has been denied.
15. Though it follows in law, but for the satisfaction of the
counsel, we state so.
16. Else, there is no merit in the petition.
17. The petition is dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
JULY 15, 2020
s
