Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Wg Cdr Neha Sharma (29104-G) vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 June, 2021

Author: Navin Chawla

Bench: Navin Chawla, Asha Menon

                          $~16
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(C) 5942/2021
                                 WG CDR NEHA SHARMA (29104-G)                           ..... Petitioner
                                                    Through:      Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate

                                                    versus

                                 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                    ..... Respondent
                                               Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
                                                         CGSC with Mr. S. Bushra Kazim and
                                                         Ms. Kinjal Shrivastava, Advocates

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
                                         ORDER

% 16.06.2021 The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 18744-45/2021 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 18746-47/2021 (Exemption Court Fee & Affidavit)

1. This application has been filed seeking exemption from filing duly notarized affidavits and affixing requisite court fee. Binding the deponent of the affidavit to the contents of the application, the exemption is granted.

2. The court fee shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court within a period of one week from the date of physical functioning of this Court.

3. The application is accordingly disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5942/2021 & CM APPL. 18743/2021 (Direction and Stay)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „learned AFT‟), in OA No. 1042 of 2021, titled Wg Cdr Neha Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., refusing to grant interim protection to the petitioner from being relieved from service.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was deputed as a Flight Cadet as a Short Service Commission Officer on 08.07.2005. Various policies were issued by the respondent for grant of Permanent Commission, finally culminating into a Policy dated 16.01.2019. The petitioner could not be considered in the year 2019 and 2020 for the grant of Permanent Commission for not being in acceptable medical category. The medical category of the petitioner was upgraded with effect from 11.08.2020 and she gave her willingness to be granted Permanent Commission on 19.01.2021. However, vide order dated 24.05.2021, she was not found fit for grant of Permanent Commission and has been ordered to be released from service with effect from 16.06.2021, forcing her to file a petition before the learned AFT.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was entitled to at least her three chances for being considered for grant of Permanent Commission. He submits that for the view taken by the learned AFT that on being relieved from service, the officer cannot be given further chances for being considered for Permanent Commission, would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner and therefore, interim protection to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA W.P.(C) 5942/2021 Page 2 of 4 Signing Date:17.06.2021 the petitioner for continuation of her service should have been granted by the learned AFT.

4. We are not impressed with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. This Court in Wg Cdr Nidhi Badhani v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 5871 of 2021, has already considered similar submissions and held, as under:

"8. Once the position in law is as aforesaid, i.e. that by interim order none can be permitted to occupy a public office and once the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents and not in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner if ultimately succeeds can always be reinstated to the same position, no perversity is found in the impugned order of AFT.

9. The counsel for the petitioner contends that reinstatement in service would cause difficulties to the petitioner. However neither are the said difficulties described nor is the counsel for the petitioner, on our asking, also able to enumerate the same."

6. The learned ATF is yet to consider the merit of the submissions made by the petitioner for grant of further opportunity to be considered for Permanent Commission. The learned ATF can also mold the relief in case the petitioner is found entitled to one while considering the petition filed by the petitioner. However, at this stage, no case for interim protection was made out by the petitioner. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the Impugned Order.

7. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.

(NAVIN CHAWLA, J) VACATION JUDGE (ASHA MENON, J) VACATION JUDGE JUNE 16, 2021 Aj/P Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA W.P.(C) 5942/2021 Page 4 of 4 Signing Date:17.06.2021