Delhi High Court
Wg Cdr Reena vs Union Of India on 11 June, 2021
$~2 to 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 11.06.2021
+ W.P.(C) 5913/2021 & CM APPL. 18644-46/2021
WG CDR KUSUM THAKURI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC
with Mr.Sahaj Garg, GP &
Mr.Kautilya Birat, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 5914/2021 & CM APPL. 18647-49/2021
WG CDR SUCHETA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC
with Mr.Sahaj Garg, GP &
Mr.Kautilya Birat, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 5915/2021 & CM APPL. 18650-52/2021
WG CDR REENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs.Bharathi Raju, CGSC.
+ W.P.(C) 5916/2021 & CM APPL. 18653-55/2021
WG CDR DARSHANA SONKAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs.Bharathi Raju, CGSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
WP(C) 5913-16/2021
11.06.2021 21:49:14 Page 1 of 5
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
These petitions have been heard through video conferencing.
1. These petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated
04.06.2021 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi in a batch of petitions filed by the petitioners
herein, refusing grant of interim protection to the petitioners.
2. The petitioners were commissioned as Short Service
Commissioned Officers (SSC). The respondent issued an HR Policy
dated 16.01.2019 laying down conditions for such officers to be
considered for a grant of a Permanent Commission. In terms of the
said policy, the petitioners were considered for grant of Permanent
Commission in 2019 and 2020. They were again considered in the
year 2021, however, on all three occasions were found unfit for the
grant of the Permanent Commission. Aggrieved of the order dated
24.05.2021 refusing to grant Permanent Commission, the petitioners
approached the learned Tribunal on 03.06.2021 making common
prayers, which are reproduced hereinunder from WP(C) 5913/2021: -
"(A) Set aside the Policy dated 16.01.2019to
the extent that it is unfair and arbitrary
in terms of implementation;
(B) Direct Respondents to grant Permanent
Commission to the Applicant;
(C) Direct the Respondents to produce
signal/documents related to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
WP(C) 5913-16/2021
declassification of vacancies with
respect to the SSC Officers for the BOO
of 2019, 2020 and 2021;"
3. The learned Tribunal by way of the Impugned Orders has
refused to grant interim protection to the petitioners, which is in
challenge before this Court in the present batch of petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have been unfairly denied the grant of Permanent
Commission without assigning any reason for the same. She submits
that even if a relief is later granted to the petitioners, the petitioners
may suffer prejudice in form of seniority and rank. She submits that
the learned Tribunal has also erred in placing reliance on the judgment
dated 04.06.2021 of this Court in Wg. Cdr. Nidhi Badhani vs. Union
of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 5871/2021, inasmuch as in the present case
there is no challenge to the HR Policy dated 16.01.2019 of the
respondent; the only challenge is to the retrospective application
thereof to the petitioners.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, however, find no merit in the same. The
prayers made by the petitioners in the O.A. (s) have been reproduced
hereinabove. The first prayer is a challenge to the HR Policy dated
16.01.2019 while the third prayer is a challenge to the consideration of
the petitioners by the Board of Officers in the years 2019, 2020 and
2021. As noted hereinabove, the petitioners approached the learned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
WP(C) 5913-16/2021
Tribunal only on 03.06.2021. The petitioners have also participated in
the consideration process for grant of Permanent Commissions in
terms of the HR Policy of 2019. Therefore, prima facie there appears
to be not only considerable delay in filing of the petitions before the
learned Tribunal but also the petitioners may be considered as
estopped from challenging the retrospective application of the HR
Policy of the respondents, having participated in the selection process
in terms thereof.
6. This Court in Wg. Cdr. Nidhi Badhani (supra) had rejected a
similar plea of interim protection by observing as under: -
"8. Once the position in law is as aforesaid,
i.e. that by interim order none can be
permitted to occupy a public office and once
the balance of convenience is in favour of the
respondents and not in favour of the petitioner,
inasmuch as the petitioner if ultimately
succeeds can always be reinstated to the same
position, no perversity is found in the
impugned order of AFT.
9. The counsel for the petitioner contends that
reinstatement in service would cause
difficulties to the petitioner. However neither
are the said difficulties described nor is the
counsel for the petitioner, on our asking, also
able to enumerate the same."
7. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the orders
Impugned before us. The petitions are accordingly dismissed making
it clear that any observation made by us in the present order will not in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
WP(C) 5913-16/2021
any manner prejudice either party in the petitions pending before the
learned Tribunal.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
(NAVIN CHAWLA, J)
VACATION JUDGE
(ASHA MENON, J)
VACATION JUDGE
JUNE 11, 2021/rv/ns/U.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
WP(C) 5913-16/2021
