Delhi High Court - Orders
Wg Cdr Punita Aswal vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 July, 2020
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 3837/2020, C.M. Nos.13746-13747/2020
WG CDR PUNITA ASWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Nikhil Palli, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 01.07.2020 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
C.M. No. 13747/2020 (for exemption from filing Court Fee and attestation of affidavits and true typed copy of the illegible/dim annexures and certified copy of order dated 26th June, 2020)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and in terms of extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P. (C) 3837/2020, C.M. No. 13746/2020 (for ad-interim directions)
3. The petition impugns the order dated 26th June, 2020 of the Armed Force Tribunal (AFT) dismissing M.A. No.756/2020 of the petitioner for interim relief in O.A. No.1500/2019 and seeks to restrain the respondents Air Force from releasing the petitioner, inducted as a Short-Service Commissioned Officer in the Air Force, scheduled for 2 nd July, 2020, till W.P. (C) 3837/2020 Page 1 of 3 the decision of the O.A.
4. The AFT, in the impugned order has held that the petitioner, commissioned as a Short-Service Commissioned Officer in the Air Force on 3rd July, 2006, though filed the O.A. from which the present petition arises, impugning the Policy dated 16th January, 2019, of the Air Force for consideration of Short-Service Commissioned Officers inducted w.e.f. 25th May, 2006, but the petitioner withdrew the said challenge and agreed to consideration under the Policy of 16th January, 2019 and whereunder, she has not been found eligible for absorption in the Air Force.
5. The petitioner has not produced before us, the documents containing the reasons for which the petitioner has not been found eligible for being absorbed in the Air Force under the Policy of 16th January, 2019.
6. The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice, on enquiry states that the documents containing the reasons must have been communicated to the petitioner.
7. We do not find the impugned order also to be recording the reasons for which the petitioner has not been absorbed and it only records, that the challenge by the petitioner thereto shall be considered in the O.A. preferred by the petitioner and if the O.A. is allowed, the petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential reliefs.
8. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had not given up the challenge to the applicability of the Policy of 16th January, 2019.
9. The petitioner, in the petition itself has reserved the right to separately challenge the order dated 20th February 2020 by which, W.P. (C) 3837/2020 Page 2 of 3 according to the AFT, the petitioner confined the challenge in the petition to the merits of the decision in accordance with the Policy dated 16th January, 2019. We are thus at a loss to know the reasons for which the petitioner has not been absorbed.
10. Else, till the petitioner challenges the order of the AFT by which the petitioner has been held to have, the grant of any interim relief to the petitioner cannot even be considered.
11. The counsel for the petitioner states that he will file a separate petition challenging the said order dated 20th February, 2020, within one week.
12. List this petition along with the fresh petition, if any filed, on 13th July, 2020.
13. The release of the petitioner scheduled for tomorrow shall be subject to further orders in this petition.
14. The counsel for the respondents to keep all the records ready for hearing on that date.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
JULY 01, 2020 s W.P. (C) 3837/2020 Page 3 of 3