No interference can be called under article 227, if SC’s decision implemented properly: Delhi High Court

The Petitioners have served for several years in the Navy and that they would be required to look for fresh accommodation, as also on humanitarian grounds during a global pandemic, they are permitted three months’ time to vacate their official accommodations It is made clear that the Respondent authorities would cooperate with the Petitioners during this period, for their smooth transition. This judgment was delivered by division bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Subramonium Prasad at Delhi High Court in the matter of CDR Amit Khajuria v. Union of India and Ors. [WP No. (C) – 11231 of 2020].

The Petitioners in the present petition has alleged that they were shortlisted and the Selection Board was constituted for consideration of grant of Permanent Commission. The Selection Board, after a detailed consideration of the matter, decided to grant discharge to eight Officers, including the three Petitioners herein. A notice of discharge was served upon the Petitioners on 18th December 2020, pursuant to which the Petitioners moved before the AFT and sought stay of the discharge order. The present three writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order dated 24th December, 2020, passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal by which the applications moved by the Petitioners seeking stay of discharge as per order dated 18.12.2020, passed by the Ministry of Defence, have been dismissed by the ld. AFT. The Petitioners had originally filed petitions before the AFT seeking directions against non-consideration for grant of Permanent Commission. In the said petitions filed before the AFT, an interim order was passed on 21st December, 2018.

The court observed that “Under these circumstances, no interference is called in the present petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution. The question as to whether the policy applied and whether the rejection of Permanent Commission to the Petitioners is valid or not, would have to be decided on merits by the Tribunal, either in the pending petitions or in any fresh challenge which may be mounted by the Petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. Usually, Short Service Commission officers are given eight to ten months release time in order to enable them to seek alternate employment. If that is the usual practice, the Petitioners are permitted to make a representation to that effect to the Respondent authority, which shall be considered in a compassionate manner considering the prevalent situation of a pandemic. The Petitioners are permitted to approach the Ld. AFT for any further directions in this regard.”

The court while deciding upon the matter held that “Needless to add that the observations made in the present petitions would not affect the final determination by the ld. AFT. The petitions and all pending applications are disposed of in the above terms.”


Click here to read judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *