$~29 to 32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3930/2025 & CM APPL. 18354/2025 EX CPL DEEPAK KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Durgesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sahaj Garg, Sr. PC with Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Adv. for UOI with Mr. Amit Vashisht, Air Force + W.P.(C) 4089/2025 & CM APPL. 19011/2025 EX CPL JITENDRA SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Durgesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Syed Haseeb, CGSC with Mr. Anisul Haque, GP for UOI + W.P.(C) 4091/2025 & CM APPL. 19015/2025 EX CPL SAURABH VERMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Durgesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Suruchi Mittal, Sr. PC with Mr. Amit Acharya, GP for UOI Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C) 3930/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 6 + W.P.(C) 4097/2025 & CM APPL. 19046/2025 EX CPL VV SUDHEER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Durgesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Sr.

PC with Mr. Hilal Haider, GP for UOI CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 02.04.2025 C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The petitioners, in these writ petitions, were the applicants before the Armed Forces Tribunal, [“the AFT”, hereinafter] in OA 1365/2024, [Ex. Cpl Deepak Kumar v UOI], OA 1328/2024, [Ex. Cpl Jitendra Singh v UOI], OA 1349/2024, [Ex. Cpl V V Sudheer v UOI] and OA 2823/2024, [Ex. Cpl Saurabh Verma v UOI], whereby they challenged the orders passed by the respondents dismissing them from service under Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 18 of the Air Force Rules, 1969. They also moved applications, with the OAs, seeking interim injunction.

2. The AFT has, by a common order dated 6 December 2024, dismissed the applications seeking interim relief.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C) 3930/2025 and connected matters Page 2 of 6

3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed applications seeking early hearing of their OAs, which also stand dismissed by the AFT by individual orders passed in each case.

4. These writ petitions assail the common order dated 6 December 2024, whereby the petitioners’ prayer for interim relief has been rejected, as well as the orders by which their prayer for early hearing of their OAs have been dismissed.

5. We have heard Mr. Durgesh Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sahaj Garg, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents in WP (C) 3930/2025, Mr. Syed Haseeb, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents in WP (C) 4089/2025, Ms. Suruchi Mittal, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents in WP (C) 4091/2025 and Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents in WP (C) 4097/2025.

6. We find no reason to interfere with either of the orders under challenge in these writ petitions.

7. Insofar as the challenge to the rejection of the petitioners prayer for interim relief is concerned, this Court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the AFT. Our jurisdiction partakes of the character of certiorari. In exercise of such jurisdiction, we ordinarily loath to interfere with the interim orders passed by the AFT, which are fundamentally discretionary in nature.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C) 3930/2025 and connected matters Page 3 of 6

8. Secondly, the orders under challenge are orders of dismissal from service. Classically, there can no interim stay of an order dismissing an employee from service, as it would amount to restoring the status quo ante at an interim state, which cannot be granted.

9. Needless to say, should the petitioners succeed in their OAs, appropriate reliefs would be available to them.

10. Thirdly, we may reproduce the reasoning of the AFT in paras

10 to 13 of the order dated 6 December 2024, thus:

“10. We have taken judicial n