WG. CDR. Niketa Pandey v. Union of India

5. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Air Force on 18th June, 2011 as Short Service Commission (Woman Officer) for 10+4 Scheme.

6. The initial commission period was 10 years, which was provisionally extended by four years vide communication dated 06th January, 2021.

7. According to the petitioner, she has rendered 15 years of unblemished, meritorious and dedicated service.

8. According to her, she was denied permanent commission on three successive occasions by the Board of Officers convened in May 2023, May 2024 and May 2025 under the existing policy HRP-01/2019 which was subsequently held to be arbitrary and discriminatory by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 24th March, 2026, delivered in Civil Appeal 3870/2026 titled as “Wg. Cdr. Sucheta Edn. &Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.”.

9. Alleging arbitrary, discriminatory approach on the part of the respondent in illegally denying permanent commission to the petitioner, the petitioner approached the Armed Forces Tribunal through O.A. 1864/2026.

10. In the said O.A., the petitioner has preferred an application M.A. 2754/2026 seeking interim relief in the form of stay of her release, from service, in the light of the directions issued in the judgment dated 24th March, 2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3870/2026 being Wg. Cdr Sucheta Edn(supra).

11. The Tribunal has refused to grant such relief vide Impugned Order dated 23rd June, 2026, as such, this petition.

12. While considering the petition during the summer vacation period, this Court has granted interim order in favour of the petitioner vide Order dated 29th June, 2026. W.P. (C) No. 8383/2026

13. The petitioner was granted Short Service Commission who is W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters questioning the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2026, whereby the request for interim protection against the release from service had been rejected.

14. The petitioner therein, was sought to be released from service vide order dated 04th June, 2026.

15. It is the case of the petitioner that she was also granted interim protection from release from service by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide the aforesaid judgment. W.P. (C) 8385/2026

16. The petitioner was granted Short Service Commission on 30th June, 2012 in the Fighter Controller Branch of Indian Air Force.

17. The petitioner was directed to be released from the Short Service Commission w.e.f. 29th June, 2026 which has prompted her to prefer an original application bearing No. 2077/2026 before the Armed Forces Tribunal in which, vide impugned order dated 23rd June, 2026, the interim relief was denied. W.P. (C) 8386/2026

18. The petitioner was granted Short Service Commission on 30th June, 2012 in Air Traffic Control Branch.

19. Post her non-selection on 02nd June, 2026 for permanent commission, the marching order for release from service of Short Service Commission officers was served on the petitioner which led to the filing of O.A. 2080/2026 before the Armed W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench.

20. While questioning the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2026, the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was an intervenor through I.A. No. 127999/2025 in Civil Appeal 3870/2026(supra) and was granted ad-interim stay of release from service vide order dated 22nd May 2025.

21. According to her, after the disposal of the aforesaid civil appeal, the operative order therein permits the petitioner to file an O.A. before the Armed Forces Tribunal.

22. According to the petitioner, the interim relief was continued by virtue of Para 39-clause (iv) of the Judgment dated 24th March, 2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3870/2026. In this background, the only option that was available to the respondent was to move and seek modification or vacating the interim relief through an application taken out by the respondent. Otherwise, the interim order passed by the Apex Court as reflected in its judgment dated 24th March, 2026 was to continue till the proceedings are concluded by the Tribunal.

23. In addition to above, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the findings recorded in support of denial of relief in the Impugned Order cannot be said to be germane to the cause. The fact that the petitioner was not before the Armed Forces Tribunal through an original application on any particular date, i.e., on or before 24th March 2026, is inconsequential in view of interim relief ordered by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

24. According to him, the language of the Apex Court in Para 39(iv) of the Judgment referred above is aptly clear to infer the continuation of interim relief in favour of the present petition even before the Tribunal before the same is vacated or modified.

25. Drawing support from the judgment in the matter of “High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.” reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, it is urged by the petitioner that the Tribunal is in error in passing the impugned order, thereby refusing to grant the interim relief as the interim order needs to be continued having regard to the orders of the Apex Court of which neither modification or vacation is sought by the respondent.

26. As against above, the counsel for the respondent would oppose the prayer as according to them, the Tribunal, while denying the ad-interim relief i.e., stay of the Release Order dated 04th June, 2026, has worked out the equities by making an observation that in case the original application is allowed, the petitioner will be continued in service.

27. His further contentions are that once the period of Short Service Commission, which in this case is 14 years, is already completed and the petitioner has exhausted the opportunities of securing permanent commission unsuccessfully, there is no legal right for the petitioner to ask and enjoy the interim relief in the matter.

28. He would urge that the interim relief, if so granted, will amount to grant of final relief and in such an eventuality, this Court should dismiss the petition without exercising extraordinary jurisdiction.

29. It is further urged that there are many similar officers like the petitioners and many of them are already discontinued from service, having exhausted their tenure of Short Service Commission and who have failed to secure the permanent commission.

30. Having appreciated the aforesaid submissions, this Court is required to be sensitive to certain factual matrix in the matter.

31. The Wing Commander, Sucheta EDN was before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3870/2026 which was arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16548/2024 with connected matters.

32. In the said Appeals, the appellants were claiming grant of permanent commission after such relief was denied through successive selection process.

33. The Apex Court, while dealing with the claim put forth in the said Appeal, has made the following observations:

34. Para 39(iv) from the aforesaid observations, in our opinion, is relevant to the case of the petitioner who approached the Apex Court in the aforesaid pending appeal through an intervention application.

35. It is an admitted position, which is borne out of record, that the petitioner, an officer having Short Service Commission, was granted stay on her release from service by the Apex Court and the same was continued post disposal of the SLP.

36. The Apex Court has granted liberty to the officers, like the petitioners, who are aggrieved by denial of the permanent commission by the Board convened after 2021, to approach the Tribunal or the High Court in accordance with law. In the cases wherein challenges are already pending before the Tribunal or the High Court, the parties are permitted to continue to pursue such claims.

37. However, it is not that the parties like the petitioners, who were intervenors before the Apex Court, were precluded from pursuing the remedy through a fresh original application before the Tribunal, after the matter was decided by the Apex Court on 24th March, 2026.

38. In our opinion, the effect of Clause 39 (iv) referred above is that the interim relief, viz, stay on release from service was ipso facto continued before the Tribunal, and there was no necessity for the parties, like the petitioners, who were granted relief by the Apex Court to apply afresh for grant of stay to their release from service.

39. In our opinion, even if such applications for grant of stay were preferred like the one in the present petition, the Tribunal ought not to have gone into the same unless the respondents apply for W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters release/vacation/modification of interim orders in the cases where by virtue of the order of Apex Court, stay was in operation.

40. As a sequel of above, the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the directions issued as referred above in para 39(iv), the interim order continues to operate in favour of the petitioner till the same is modified/vacated or the challenged itself is finally decided by the Tribunal.

41. In the case in hand, none of the aforesaid events have occurred and the Tribunal has proceeded to vacate the interim relief without there being any request from the other side. In our opinion, consideration for modification/vacation of interim relief will be different than that of arguing the matter for grant of interim relief.

42. In our opinion, such approach on the part of the Tribunal goes contrary to the mandate of the Apex Court as could be referred from the Judgment dated 24th March, 2026.

43. As such, in our opinion, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 23rd June, 2026 cannot be said to be sustainable.

44. Apart from above, in our opinion, the Tribunal erred in recording that the petitioner is not entitled to any interim relief on the ground that the original application was not filed before 24th March, 2026 and that the petitioner approached subsequent to the said date. We are unable to convince ourselves as to the W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters significance of said date in view of the direction and liberty ordered by the Apex Court.

45. The plain reading of para 39(iv) of the Judgment dated 24th March, 2026 does not give us an impression that it was necessary for the intervenors’, like the present petitioners’, challenge to have been pending before the Tribunal on the date when the order was passed by the Apex Court, i.e., on 24th March, 2026. Rather the petitioner, who was before the Apex Court through an intervenor application, was granted an interim protection by the Apex Court and same, in our opinion, is continued subject to the rider provided in the para 39(iv) of the said judgment.

46. Once the Apex Court has granted interim relief based on the intervention application preferred by the petitioner, the very mandate of the Judgment dated 24th March, 2026 is that the interim order passed by the Apex Court continues.

47. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to that effect is not sustainable.

48. That being so, the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2026 passed by the Tribunal, thereby denying ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. We dispose of the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid order.

49. We direct the continuation of interim relief in favour of the W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters petitioner till the period it is expressly vacated or modified upon a written request made by the respondent before the Tribunal.

50. Needless to clarify, we have not commented on the merits of the matter and it is for the Tribunal to deal with the request, so if not made by the respondent, for vacation/modification on its own merit.

51. As far as the cases in which the parties were not before the Hon’ble Apex Court like in W.P.(C) 8385/2026 and W.P.(C) 8386/2026, the fact remains that the marching orders for release from service from Short Service Commission was issued post order of the Apex Court, as such, the petitioners therein had no opportunity to approach the Tribunal before the Apex Court as the Apex Court decided the issue in March, 2026, wherein opportunity was granted to the parties to agitate their respective claims about not granting permanent commission either before the Armed Forces Tribunal or the High Court, in accordance with law.

52. Rightly so, the petitioners have already approached the Armed Forces Tribunal. Solely because, at the relevant time, the petitioners were not before the Apex Court or before the Armed Forces Tribunal, that by itself would not disentitle them from the grant of interim protection.

53. In our view, till the issue of interim protection is decided after hearing both the sides, the interim order dated 29th June, 2026 passed by this Court in these matters also needs continuation to W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters follow the judicial discipline.

54. As such, the order refusing to grant ad-interim relief in these petitions is also set aside.

55. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

56. A copy of this Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE (JUDGE)

AMIT SHARMA (JUDGE) JULY 23, 2026/dm/ok