Delhi High Court
Maj Rajinder Kaur vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2021
$~Suppl.-14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 3138/2021 & CM APPLs. 9518-9519/2021
MAJ RAJINDER KAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Indra Sen Singh and Mr. J.
Amal Anand, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek B. Saharya, Senior Pane
Counsel for UOI with Col.
Schidanand Prabhu MS Legal
Army, Mr. Suraj Kumar, G.P.
% Date of Decision: 15th March, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the interim order
dated 26th February 2021 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal only to
the extent it rejects/disallows the Petitioner's prayer for interim stay of
the order dated 11th January 2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 thereby
denying Permanent Commission/Extension of Service to the Petitioner
and directs the compulsory release/discharge of the Petitioner w.e.f. 18th
March, 2021.
2. Petitioner also seeks direction to the Respondents not to give effect
to the impugned order dated 11th January, 2021 and not to
Signature Not Verified
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:18.03.2021
18:29:30
release/discharge the Petitioner from service until disposal of the
Petitioner's statutory complaint dated 25th January, 2021 or until disposal
of the Petitioner's O.A. 359 of 2021 whichever is later.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was
commissioned in the EME Corps as a SSC (Woman) Officer. He states
that as per the terms of engagement of SSC Officers, the Petitioner was
required to serve for a mandatory period of ten years (i.e., up to 18th
March 2021) extendable by another four years. He also points out that in
the ninth year of the Petitioner's service, the Petitioner was required to be
considered along with the Petitioner's batch for grant of Permanent
Commission (PC)/extension of service and if found fit for PC, the
Petitioner could serve up to the age of superannuation like any other PC
Officer.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner emphasises that the Petitioner has
had a good service record, has done all the courses required to be
undergone, has maintained a good physical fitness and is currently in
SHAPE 1.
5. He states that though Petitioner applied for grant of PC/Extension
of Service, yet the Respondents delayed in releasing the results and the
results were declared vide order dated 11th January 2021 wherein the
Petitioner was not granted either PC or extension of service and the
impugned order further directed that the Petitioner be released from
service w.e.f. 18th March 2021.
6. He states that the Petitioner preferred a statutory complaint
addressed to Respondent No. 1, thereby requesting reconsideration,
Signature Not Verified
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:18.03.2021
18:29:30
however the statutory complaint dated 20th January, 2021, has not been
considered/disposed off till date.
7. He further states that the Petitioner filed OA No. 359/2021 before
the Armed Forces Tribunal praying for interim relief to stay the operation
of the impugned order pending disposal of the Petitioner's OA. However,
he states that the AFT issued notice but rejected the Petitioner's prayer
for interim relief vide impugned order dated 26th February 2021 on the
erroneous assumption that there are adverse report against the petitioner.
8. From a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that the
petitioner has herself speculated the probable reason for denial of PC
and/or extension of service as downgraded/underrated assessments in the
ACRs for the period 29th April, 2013 to 31st October, 2013, 26th April,
2015 to 31st October, 2015, 1st November, 2015 to 31st October, 2016 and
1st November, 2016 to 13th April, 2017.
9. In the opinion of this Court, if the petitioner has, according to
herself, downgraded/underrated assessments for the periods 26th April,
2015 to 13th April, 2017 and 29th April, 2013 to 31st October, 2013, the
impugned order cannot be prima facie stated to be without any reason or
groundless.
10. Even the AFT in the impugned order has observed that No.5
Selection Board in November/December, 2020 did not consider the case
of the petitioner for extension of service on account of certain adverse
reports so also on scrutiny of service record of the petitioner.
11. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not
entitled to continuance in service pending disposal of OA by the AFT.
Signature Not Verified
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:18.03.2021
18:29:30
12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner's appeal before the AFT shall not be disposed of for a long
time and ultimately even if the appeal is allowed, the petitioner would not
get any relief due to application of the principle 'No Work No Pay'.
13. To balance the equities, this Court directs that the petitioner's
statutory complaint dated 20th January, 2021 shall be disposed of by way
of a reasoned order within four weeks.
14. This Court is also confident that in the event the petitioner files an
application for early hearing before the AFT, the AFT shall try to dispose
of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
15. Needless to say, the AFT would consider the petitioner's prayer for
reimbursement of full salary in accordance with law in the event the
petitioner's appeal is allowed.
16. With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition and applications
stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
ASHA MENON, J
MARCH 15, 2021
js/pkb
Signature Not Verified
By:MANJEET KAUR
Signing Date:18.03.2021
18:29:30
