Delhi High Court
Nidhi Parihar vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 October, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4596/2022
NIDHI PARIHAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Deepika Sheoran, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Sandeep Tyagi, SPC with
Mr. Surinder Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 16.10.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
CM APPL. 65255/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
3. This review petition seeks review of our judgment dated 27
August 2025, to the extent we dismissed WP (C) 4596/2022.
4. The petitioner was invalided out of service on medical grounds.
She challenged the said decision before this Court. It was sought to be
contended that the seizure disorder which was the basis of the
petitioner being invalided out of service developed after she had
joined military service and that, therefore, it could not constitute a
ground to invalid her out of service.
5. On seeing the record, we found that there was a specific entry
by the medical specialist who examined the petitioner, to the effect
that she had similar episodes in childhood. We, therefore, were of the
view that the disorder could not be said to be one which had emerged
after the petitioner had joined military service and that the petitioner
was not, therefore, entitled to so contend.
6. Now, the petitioner has changed Counsel and has filed this
review petition.
7. At the outset, we informed Ms. Deepika Sheoran who appears
for the petitioner that it is not proper for one counsel to argue the main
writ petition and for another counsel to argue the review petition and
that the Supreme Court has also critically commented on this aspect.
Nonetheless, she persisted in arguing the matter.
8. We have accordingly heard her.
9. Ms. Deepika Sheoran first submitted that there is no medical
record to the effect that the petitioner had suffered similar episodes of
seizures in childhood. The submission is obviously incorrect.
10. We may reproduce, in this context, the medical record which so
observes, thus:
"Diagnosis Opinion of MR 06981L Lt Col RAJEEV SAXENA of
CHAF -illegible- Med Splc Neurologist dt 9/4/14.
Date Disability EPILEPSY
Onset 16/3/14
Present Med Cat A4G1
H/o Present illness
25 year old young officer presented with repeated episodes
of loss of consciousness once on 16/3/2014 & IInd 23/3/14.
1st episode -- 16/3/14- After Holi there was afternoon roll call she
felt uneasy & fainted.
IInd episode -- 23/3/14 -- after the act of micturition, She fell
down unconscious. Eye witness saw stiffness of body. Later cold
limbs & was taken to hospital.
IIIrd episode -- 3/4/14 was studying on chair & she fell
unconscious. -illegible- stiffness of body. -illegible-
No H/o fever, UTI, diarrhea, abnormal fainting, urine or bladder
inconsistence. After sleep was normal.
Past History
She had similar episodes in childhood. She was admitted for
breathing difficulty was evaluated at CTC Pune & was given
steroid which she says improved her partially."
11. Clearly, therefore, the medical record reveals that the petitioner
did suffer similar episodes in childhood.
12. Ms. Sheoran then seeks to rely on certain submissions contained
in the counter affidavit of the respondents and in her declarations at
the pre-enrolment stage.
13. We fail to understand how these can constitute a basis for us to
disbelieve a medical record which specifically pertains to the
petitioner.
14. This review petition is, therefore, clearly an attempt at a second
bite at the cherry, after changing Counsel.
15. We accordingly dismiss this review petition with costs of ₹
15,000/-, to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority
by way of a demand draft, within a period of four weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
OCTOBER 16, 2025
dsn
