IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Gulshan Saini – Respondent
W.P.(C) 10180 of 2023 & CM APPL.39442-43 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Interim Order - Armed Forces Tribunal - The court set aside the interim order directing the superannuation of the respondent to be kept in abeyance, emphasizing that allowing the respondent to continue in service could result in an illegal usurpation of office if the petition is dismissed. The court also highlighted the need for the Tribunal to render its judgment at an early date for the benefit of the respondent if successful.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Colonel in the Indian Army, filed a petition before the Tribunal challenging the rejection of his promotion to the rank of Brigadier, seeking to stay his superannuation until the judgment is pronounced.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the interim order directing the superannuation of the respondent to be kept in abeyance, emphasizing the potential illegal usurpation of office if the petition is dismissed and the need for an early judgment by the Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the interim order directing the superannuation of the respondent to be kept in abeyance was sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that allowing the respondent to continue in service could result in an illegal usurpation of office if the petition is dismissed and highlighted the need for the Tribunal to render its judgment at an early date for the benefit of the respondent if successful.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, setting aside the interim order directing the superannuation of the respondent to be kept in abeyance, with a clarification that the court did not consider or comment upon the merits of the petition pending before the Tribunal.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner-Union of India impugns interim order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby the Tribunal has directed that petitioners (herein) shall keep in abeyance the discharge/superannuation of respondent till the pronouncement of Judgment by it.
2. Issue Notice. Notice is accepted by Learned Counsel for the Respondent. With the consent of Parties, Petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. Respondent was serving in the rank of Colonel in the Indian Army and was to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years in the said rank on 31.07.2023.
4. Respondent had filed the subject Petition before the Tribunal impugning the rejection of the respondent for promotion to the rank of Brigadier in the Indian Army. On promotion, respondent would have been entitled to serve for an additional period of two years in the Indian Army.
5. The impugned order dated 25.07.2023 records that arguments are heard and orders are reserved. The order also records that the respondent was attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2023 and notices the contention of learned counsel that in case he were to be promoted, he would get two years' extension of service for superannuation in the promoted post. Consequently, a prayer was made before the Tribunal that the retirement of the respondent be stayed.
6. The Tribunal in impugned order has recorded as under:
"3. We have gone through the original records of the Selection Board Proceedings and considering various aspects at the time of hearing and on going through the various issues involved in the matter, particularly the Promotion Board, we find that the prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice it requires that till the decision is taken finally by us on the application, discharge/superannuation of the applicant to be kept in abeyance. If the applicant is discharged now and ultimately, if application is allowed, it may create complication and will have adverse impact on the applicant's career.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid, as an interim measure, we direct the respondents to keep in abeyance the discharge/superannuation of the applicant, till the pronouncement of the judgment. All endeavour would be made for pronouncement at an earlier date."
7. The Tribunal no doubt has returned a prima facie finding in favour of the respondent, however, has directed that the discharge/superannuation of the respondent be kept in abeyance till the judgment is pronounced.
8. Respondent attained the age of superannuation in the rank of Colonel on 31.07.2023. By the interim order, respondent has been permitted to continue and his superannuation date has been postponed indefinitely till the judgment is pronounced. Petitioner was serving as a Colonel and as on date has already crossed the superannuation age in the rank of Colonel i.e. 58 years.
9. If one were to balance equities between the parties then if respondent were to succeed before the Tribunal and is promoted to the next higher rank of Brigadier then he can be reinstated with full benefits and seniority retrospectively. However, in case respondent were not to succeed in the petition, the period for which respondent would continue to serve pursuant to the impugned interim order would in effect be an illegal usurpation of office.
10. Reference may be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Suman Datta, (2000)10 SCC 311 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:
".........By such interim order if an employee is allowed to continue in service and then ultimately the writ petition is dismissed, then it would tantamount to usurpation of public office without any right to the same........."
11. Consequently, we are of the view that the impugned order directing that the superannuation of the respondent be kept in abeyance cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside.
12. Keeping i
The potential illegal usurpation of office if an employee is allowed to continue in service based on an interim order that is later dismissed.
Interim orders on promotions pending adjudication of an application must ensure timely resolution, especially when retirement is imminent.
The right to receive pension as property under article 300(a) of the Constitution of India and the State's obligation to release retiral dues.
The Tribunal has authority to issue interim orders directing benefits during unresolved proceedings, contingent on the merit of the original application.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.