Ujjwala Shaligram & Ors v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors

Delhi High Court · 23 May 2011 · 2011:DHC:2902

G. S. Sistani

CONT.CAS(C) 628/2010

2011:DHC:2902

administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed contempt petitions by short service commission female officers as infructuous following a Division Bench order approving their consideration for permanent commission and directed compliance by the Union of India.

Full Text

CONT.CAS(C) 628/2010, CONT.CAS(C) 731/2010, CONT.CAS(C) 832/2010, CONT.CAS(C) 855/2010, CONT.CAS(C) 43/2011, CONT.CAS(C) 161/2011, CONT.CAS(C) 248/2011, CONT.CAS(C) 346/2011
21-27 & 78.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 628/2010

JUDGMENT

Delivered on: 23.05.2011 WG CDR UJJWALA SHALIGRAM & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and
Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs.

versus

PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI

CONT.CAS(C) 731/2010
SQ LDR AJITA VARGHESE & ORS ..... Petitioners

versus

CONT.CAS(C) 832/2010
SQN LEADER KAMNA KHATRI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. D.K. Monga, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI.

CONT.CAS(C) 855/2010
BABITA PUNIYA ..... Petitioners

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents

CONT.CAS(C) 43/2011
SQ LDR NEHA PURI & ORS ..... Petitioners 2011:DHC:2902

versus

CONT.CAS(C) 161/2011
SQ LDR PRANAV SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners

versus

AIR CHIEF MARSHAL PV NAIK & ORS ..... Respondents
Mr. Ravinder Agarwal and Mr. Nitish Gupta, Advs. for respondent Air Force.

CONT.CAS(C) 248/2011
NAMITA ANAND SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners

versus

PV NAIK & ORS ..... Respondents

CONT.CAS(C) 346/2011
SQ LDR FAHEEMA AFZAL & ORS ..... Petitioners

versus

AIR CHIEF MARSHAL PV NAIK & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondent UOI, submits that present contempt petitions be dismissed as infructuous in view of the fact that on 23.5.2011 following order has been passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 4830/2010:

“1. Learned counsel for the respondents states that on 22.05.2011 the Hon’ble Minister for Defence has accorded approval to grant permanent commission to short serving commission female officers in certain wings of the Air Force who were commissioned prior to 25.05.2006 but upon certain terms and conditions and that the writ petitioners of the above captioned writ petitions would be covered by the decision taken thereby making them eligible to be considered for grant of permanent commission as per the policy framed which would require the officers to be appraised for their assessment to determine whether they meet the qualitative requirements of the service and for which they would be considered by a Board so constituted. 2. We note that the policy decision taken, vide para 13 thereof, envisages extension of tenure of short service commission officers who were due for retirement; extended tenure would be the period they would otherwise superannuate till their appraisal is done by the Board and final decision taken. 3. Thus, the aforesaid two writ petitions stand disposed of directing respondents to grant extension of tenure to such officers who are likely to retire before the Board appraisal takes place and formal orders are issued. Further directions are issued to constitute the Board within a reasonable time and appraise the writ petitioners in accordance with the policy for grant of permanent commission in the Indian Air Force.”

2. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondent UOI, further submits that he has instructions to state that the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court shall be complied with within three months from today. Respondent UOI shall be bound by the statement made by counsel in Court today.

3. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for respondent UOI, however, submits that petitioner no.8 in CONT.CAS(C)NO.855/2010 cannot be given benefit of the order of the Division Bench and the statement made in Court today.

4. Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cont.Cas(C)No.855/2010 submits that she also does not press the contempt petition qua petitioner no.8, however, seeks liberty to take appropriate remedy, which may be available in accordance with law.

5. Accordingly contempt petitions stand dismissed as infructuous as the respondents have agreed to comply with the order of the Division Bench. Liberty, as prayed, qua petitioner no.8 in Cont.Cas(C)No.855/2010, is granted. G.S. SISTANI, J. MAY 23, 2011 'msr’

Ujjwala Shaligram & Ors v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation