Delhi High Court
Lt Col Jaspreet Kaur vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 March, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12.03.2025
+ W.P.(C) 3198/2025
LT COL JASPREET KAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhabra, with Mr.
Deepak Kumar Thakur, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Jagdish Chandra, CGSC
with Ms.Archana Surve, GP
and Mr.Subham Kumar Mishra,
Adv. for R-1 to R-3
Col Sarika, Lt Col Deepak
Ranva, Major Anish Murlidhar
and Major Tarun
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 3198/2025
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by
the Order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Armed Forces
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the
"learned Tribunal") passed in Original Application No. 2482/2023
(O.A.) titled Maj Jaspreet Kaur v. Union of India & Ors.. By the said
order, although the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties
were heard and orders were reserved, no interim protection was
granted to the petitioner. In fact, there is not even a consideration of
the said prayer.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is due to be released as a Short Service Commissioned officer on
18.03.2025. He submits that the learned Tribunal has orally indicated
that it would not be possible for the learned Tribunal to pronounce the
Judgment before the said date. He submits that, therefore, the OA filed
by the petitioner itself would become infructuous, and the petitioner
would be left remediless without being heard.
4. He further submits that the petitioner has a good prima facie
case inasmuch as her challenge to the Confidential Report (in short,
„CR‟) for the period of 31.03.2019 to 31.10.2019 has almost been
conceded by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed before the
learned Tribunal. He further submits that the CR for the period from
01.11.2017 to 10.04.2018 has also been wrongly excluded from
consideration by the respondents for the purposes of granting a
Permanent Commission to the petitioner, even though the petitioner
has been graded as „outstanding‟ in the same. He submits that the
number of vacancies has also been wrongly calculated by the
respondents.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, who
appears on advance notice of this petition, submits that the learned
Tribunal was apprised of the fact that the Supreme Court by its Order
dated 24.02.2025, passed in Maj Avinish Shukla v. Union of India &
Ors. (Civil Appeal Dy No. 57908/2024), had protected the appellant
therein only to a limited extent that the release of the appellant therein
from service shall be subject to the outcome of the said appeal. She
submits that considering the said fact, the learned Tribunal did not
grant any interim protection to the petitioner in the present case. She
further submits that the contentions raised by the petitioner have been
duly answered by the respondents, and Judgment has been reserved by
the learned Tribunal. She submits that it would not be proper for this
Court to carry out a parallel hearing on these submissions.
6. She assures this Court that as far as the direction by the learned
Tribunal to hand over the the original record to it, the same shall be
duly complied with and the records submitted with the learned
Tribunal today itself. She further submits that the written submissions
in terms of the Order dated 24.02.2025 of the learned Tribunal, shall
be positively filed by the respondents by 17.03.2025.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
8. We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned
counsel for the respondents that once the learned Tribunal has already
heard the primary dispute between the parties and has reserved its
Judgment on the same, we should not proceed to re-consider the same
in a parallel proceedings. Therefore, we refrain ourselves from making
any comment on the merits of the dispute that is pending before the
learned Tribunal. We confine ourselves only to the interim protection
that needs to be granted to the petitioner herein.
9. In Maj Avinish Shukla (supra), the Supreme Court has
protected the appellant therein by directing that her release from
service shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal. We have today
itself followed the said order in two Writ Petitions, being W.P.(C)
3195/2025 titled Maj Paneet Gill v. Union of India Through & Ors.,
and also in W.P.(C) 3213/2025 titled Maj Rashi Mishra Vs. Union of
India Through & Ors.. We are of the opinion that similar protection
needs to be extended to the petitioner as well.
10. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition by directing that in
case the Judgment of the learned Tribunal is not pronounced in the
OA pending before it, before 18.03.2025, the release of the petitioner
from service shall be subject to the outcome of the said OA.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J
MARCH 12, 2025/sg/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
