Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 7446/2022 & CM APPL. 24500/2025
LT. COL. SHAJI JOSEPH (RETD.) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advs.
Through: Major Anish Muralidhar Army for UOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
ORDER (ORAL)
25.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. We have heard Mr. Ankur Chhibber on the present review petition. The main ground urged in the review petition is that once this Court has taken a view that Rule 67 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules[1] does not apply, ipso facto, the impugned judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal[2], which was under challenge in the writ petition would have to be set aside and the writ petition would have to be allowed.
2. Mr. Chhibber submits that once the Court finds that Rule 67 of the CCS (Pension) Rules would not apply, the order passed by the AFT, as it was predicated on Rule 67 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, “CCS (Pension) Rules” “AFT” hereinafter would have to be set aside.
3. In our view, this is a completely misconceived submission. The Court is concerned with the ultimate decision passed in the order under challenge. In case the Court finds that the ultimate decision is sustainable, even if on a ground which is not that on which the order under challenge was passed, the order would sustain, even if the ground on which the order was passed is not found to be acceptable.
4. There is no principle in law to the effect that if the ground on which the order under challenge was passed is not found to be sustainable, the order would ipso facto have to be set aside and that the Court cannot examine any other aspect of the matter.
5. Though we have found in favour of the petitioner with respect to Rule 67 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, we have thereafter, in para 26
(xvi) to (xix), clearly set out why no relief could be granted to the petitioner.
6. We, therefore, do not find that the ground urged by Mr. Chhibber is sustainable as a ground to review our decision.
7. Though, Mr. Chhibber sought to re-argue certain aspects, this is a review petition. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be permitted to reargue the writ petition, in review.
8. No case is, therefore, made out to review the judgment dated 24 March 2025.
9. The review petition is accordingly dismissed along with pending applications, if any.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.