[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Lt Col Harpreet Kaur Bahia vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 13.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 3245/2026 CM APPL. 15593/2026 CM APPL. 15594/2026
LT COL HARPREET KAUR BAHIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr SS Pandey and Mr Roshan
Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Sharma, GP for UOI
Major Tarun Pillai, Major Birindre
Singh MS Legal and Major Kanika
Sharma
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 15594/2026 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3245/2026
3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following
prayers:
"a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction including writ of
certiorari thereby calling for the original records based on which
Ld. Tribunal dismissed the O.A. no. 280 of 2024 filed by the
petitioner vide it's impugned judgement dated 30.05.2025
affirming the actions of the Respondents denying permanent
commission to the Petitioner as well as the impugned order dated
26.02.2026 issued by the Respondents vide which the release of
the Petitioner consequent to denial of PC was issued and
thereafter quash the same;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the Respondents to
take appropriate action in terms of the directions as and when the
same is issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA 9747-
9757/2024.
(c) Issue any other/further direction as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. In effect, the petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Armed
Forces Tribunal dated 30.05.2025 insofar as it relates to Original
Application being OA 280/2024. The only submission made by Mr. SS
Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has sought
her permanent commission in the Army based on the judgment rendered by
the Supreme Court in the case of Lt. Col. Nitisha and Ors. v. Union of
India1.
5. He states that identical issue is pending consideration before the
Supreme Court in a batch of writ petitions which has been reserved for
judgment by the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Pooja Pal & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 9747-9757/2024.
6. He relies upon the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid SLP to contend that the protection given by the Supreme Court
shall also cover the Officers whose cases are subjudice before the Armed
2021 SCC OnLine 261
Forces Tribunal or the High Courts. In other words, he seeks protection
inasmuch as the petitioner should not be released from service pending the
decision of the Supreme Court.
7. On the other hand, the Officers who appear for the respondents submit
that, pursuant to the decision by the Tribunal, the respondents have
proceeded to release the petitioner from service on 16.03.2026. He also
draws our attention to page 54 of the paper book to contend that the order
passed by the Tribunal in the OA was an order based on the submission
made by the counsel for the petitioner, and as such, the necessary
consequence is that the petitioner shall stand released on 16.03.2026.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and noting the fact
that Mr. Pandey is seeking the benefit of the protection granted by the
Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Pooja Pal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(supra) and also considering that the issue is pending before the Supreme
Court, wherein the Supreme Court has reserved the appeals for judgment,
and we have been informed similar petitioner(s) whose OAs have been
decided by the Tribunal, have approached the Supreme Court, appropriate
shall be for the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court.
9. At this stage, Mr. Pandey submits that since the release of the
petitioner is on 16.03.2026, the respondents should be restrained from
releasing the petitioner for 15 days from today to enable the petitioner
approach the Supreme Court.
10. The Officers have left it to the Court to pass appropriate orders.
11. Having noted the submissions of the counsel and the Officers for the
respondents, we deem it appropriate to extend the release of the petitioner
till 23.03.2026, 5 P.M. to enable the petitioner approach the Supreme Court
by way of an appropriate petition.
12. This petition is closed. Pending applications (if any) are disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MARCH 13, 2026/msh
