The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Md Azam Ansari vs Union of India Through Its Secretary & Ors. consisting of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that once a person is dismissed and that Order is final up to the Highest Court, any alteration of that Order would amount to interference.
Facts
A petition under O47R1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of CPC was filed for review of the Order dated 04.09.2020 dismissing the W.P. (C) 5973/2020.
The petitioner served for 17 and half years in the elite Armed Forces before becoming a lawyer. He requested early retirement and made various representations to the respondents. He submitted W.P. (C) 8452/2008 seeking voluntary retirement, which was to be decided on 15.07.2009. In the meantime, Armed Forces Tribunal Act was operationalized, and the petition was moved to AFT on its constitution, 31.08.2009, and registered as T.A. No. 53/2009. Before the petition's merits could be decided, the petitioner was maliciously trapped in disciplinary processes, court-martialled, and discharged on 20.07.2010. The petitioner's T.A. petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.11.2010.
Procedural History
The petitioner's O.A. No. 74/2012 was dismissed by the AFT on 24.05.2016. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against this order. O.A. No. 42/2012, in which the petitioner sought pension relief, was also dismissed by the AFT, and the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. After the Supreme Court denied his appeal, he withdrew his leave to appeal from AFT on 21.08.2020.
The petitioner filed M.A. No. 1188/2020 in AFT for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the 11.11.2010 Order dismissing T.A No. 53/2009 for non-prosecution, but he withdrew this petition on 21.08.2020. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 5973/2020 impugning the Order of dismissal of T.A No. 53/2009 for non-prosecution by AFT and seeking mandamus to restore the T.A No. 53/2009 by setting aside the Order dated 11.11.2010 and to treat the petitioner as "Deemed Discharged" instead of dismissed from service with effect from 20.07.2010. The Co-ordinate Bench dismissed the petitioner's prayer because it would interfere with his final dismissal order and pension order. Aggrieved by this Order, the present Review Petition was filed.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that treating a Dismissal Order as “Deemed Discharge” would not amount to interfering with dismissal on merits as erroneously held in the impugned Order.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that there were three litigations undertaken by the petitioner; the first seeking voluntary retirement/ discharge; the second for setting aside his Dismissal from service and the third for getting the pensionary benefits. The present Review has been sought on the ground that there was an observation made in the Order that the Dismissal, as well as the Pension matter, had attained finality, when in fact, the W.P.(C) No.14390/2022 claiming pensionary benefits is still pending and is listed for 05.01.2023.
It opined that whether the petitioner can be held entitled to pension despite the Dismissal Order, is absolutely independent of the relief sought in the present case. Once a person has been dismissed and that Order has attained finality right upto the Highest Court, any modification of the said Order of Dismissal to Discharge by any authority would amount to interference, as has been rightly observed in the impugned Order dated 04.09.2020.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that the impugned Order dated 04.09.2020 did not suffer from any error apparent on face of record and no ground for review was made out. This application for Review was without merits and was hereby dismissed.
Case: Md Azam Ansari vs Union of India Through It’s Secretary & Ors.
Citation: R.P. No.330/2020 in W.P. 5973/2020
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decided on: 15th December 2022
Read Judgment @Latetslaws.com
Picture Source :
