Wg Cdr Astha Tiwari vs Union Of India And Ors

$~65-68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Date of decision: 23 July, 2026

+ W.P.(C) 8371/2026 & CM APPL. 39345/2026, CM APPL.
39346/2026, CM APPL. 39347/2026, CM APPL. 42616/2026
WG. CDR. NIKETA PANDEY (31875-S)
D/o Sub Chandrika Dutt Pandey
Aged about 37 Years
R/o OMQ P-16, Air Force Station,
Arjangarh, near Arjangarh Metro Station,
New Delhi – 110047
...PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Anju
Thomas, Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik,
Mr. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi,
Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advs.

Versus

1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Secretary, DMA,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi – 110011
…RESPONDENT NO. 1
2. CHIEF OF AIR STAFF, AIR HEADQUARTERS,
Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011
…RESPONDENT NO. 2
Through:

66
+ W.P.(C) 8383/2026 & CM APPL. 39381/2026
WG CDR RINI TRIPATHI
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 1 of 16

D/O GpCapt Ravi Kant Tripathi (Retd.)
Permanent Address: 84, D-Block, Rampuram,
Shyam Nagar, Kanpur Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh- 208013
...PETITIONER
Through:

versus

1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Secretary, DMA,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi – 110011
…RESPONDENT NO. 1

2. CHIEF OF AIR STAFF, AIR HEADQUARTERS,
Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011
…RESPONDENT NO. 2

3. AIR OFFICER-IN-CHARGE PERSONNEL (AOP)
AIR HQs, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110011
…RESPONDENT NO. 3
Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC with
Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma,
Mr. Annu Singh, Ms.
Shivangi Sharma,
Advocates with Mr. Anil
Vashisht, Law Officer IAF
67
+ W.P.(C) 8385/2026 & CM APPL. 39384/2026
WG CDR NIDHI TIWARI (32565-T)
D/o: Mr. Girish Prasad
Currently Posted at
Air Force Station Pathankot, Punjab-908621
Phone No.: 7219760575
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 2 of 16

Email: [email protected]
...PETITIONER

Through:

versus

1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Secretary, DMA,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi – 110011
…RESPONDENT NO. 1

2. CHIEF OF AIR STAFF, AIR HEADQUARTERS,
Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011
…RESPONDENT NO. 2
3. AIR OFFICER-IN-CHARGE PERSONNEL (AOP)
AIR HQs, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110011
…RESPONDENT NO. 3
Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC with
Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Annu Singh, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Advocates with Mr.
Anil Vashisht, Law Officer
IAF

68
+ W.P.(C) 8386/2026 & CM APPL. 39387/2026
WG CDR ASTHA TIWARI (32567-G)
D/o: Late Shri R.K. Tripathi
Currently Posted at
Air Force Station Agra,
Ajeet Nagar Gate, Kheria Mod, UP-282008
Phone No.: 9428296239
Email: [email protected]
...PETITIONER
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 3 of 16

Through:

versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Secretary, DMA,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi – 110011
…RESPONDENT NO. 1

2. CHIEF OF AIR STAFF, AIR HEADQUARTERS,
Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011
…RESPONDENT NO. 2

3. AIR OFFICER-IN-CHARGE PERSONNEL (AOP)
AIR HQs, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110011
…RESPONDENT NO. 3
Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC with Mr.
Rahul Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Annu Singh, Ms. Shivangi
Sharma, Advocates with Mr.
Anil Vashisht, Law Officer IAF

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
1. In these Writ Petitions, request is for interference, while
assailing a common challenge to the respective Impugned
Orders whereby the applications seeking ad-interim protection
for stay of their release from service were dismissed/rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 4 of 16

2. The petitioners, in the present batch of writ petitions, have
sought the issuance of appropriate writ, orders or directions for
quashing and setting aside the respective impugned orders
passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal.
3. The facts necessary for deciding the present petitions are as
under:
W.P. (C) 8371/2026
4. In W.P. (C) 8371/2026, the petitioner assails the impugned
rd
order dated 23 June, 2026 (hereinafter referred to be as
“ impugned order ”), delivered in M.A. 2754/2026 in O.A.
1864/2026, whereby the Armed Forces Tribunal, while
considering the interim relief application of the petitioner for
staying her release from the service, was pleased to reject the
interim protection with a rider that, in case, the petitioner
succeeds in her claim in the original application, she can be
reinstated in service.
5. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Air Force on
th
18 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
th
06 January, 2021.
7. According to the petitioner, she has rendered 15 years of
unblemished, meritorious and dedicated service.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 5 of 16

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
th
discriminatory by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 24
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
th
judgment dated 24 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
rd
Order dated 23 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
th
petitioner vide Order dated 29 June, 2026.
W.P. (C) No. 8383/2026
13. The petitioner was granted Short Service Commission who is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 6 of 16

rd
questioning the impugned order dated 23 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
th
vide order dated 04 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
th
16. The petitioner was granted Short Service Commission on 30
June, 2012 in the Fighter Controller Branch of Indian Air Force.
17. The petitioner was directed to be released from the Short
th
Service Commission w.e.f. 29 June, 2026 which has prompted
her to prefer an original application bearing No. 2077/2026
before the Armed Forces Tribunal in which, vide impugned
rd
order dated 23 June, 2026, the interim relief was denied.
W.P. (C) 8386/2026
th
18. The petitioner was granted Short Service Commission on 30
June, 2012 in Air Traffic Control Branch.
nd
19. Post her non-selection on 02 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 7 of 16

Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench.
rd
20. While questioning the impugned order dated 23 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
nd
from service vide order dated 22 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
th
virtue of Para 39-clause (iv) of the Judgment dated 24 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
th
Court as reflected in its judgment dated 24 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,
th
i.e. , on or before 24 March 2026, is inconsequential in view of
interim relief ordered by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 8 of 16

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
th
ad-interim relief i.e., stay of the Release Order dated 04 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 9 of 16

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:
“39. In this light, we consider it appropriate to allow these appeals
and set aside the Impugned Judgement dated 26.09.2023 passed by
the AFT and the Impugned Judgement dated 19.02.2024 passed by
the High Court, with the following directions:
(i) The grant of PC to the SSCOs who have already been
granted PC by the Boards convened in 2019, 2020, and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 10 of 16

2021 shall not be disturbed;
(ii) As a one-time measure, all the SSCOs who were
considered for the grant of PC in all three Boards
convened in 2019, 2020, and 2021, shall be deemed to have
completed substantive qualifying service of 20 years and
shall be entitled to pension and all consequential benefits,
except arrears of pay, on the basis that they have
completed such minimum service. As a matter of abundant
caution, we clarify that even those SSCOs whose three
chances were to take place sequentially in 2019, 2020, and
2021 but were declared ‘ineligible’ in one or more of the
Boards, shall also benefit from this direction;
(iii) The pension shall be fixed on the basis of the date of
completion of the deemed service of 20 years, but arrears
thereof, if any, shall be paid to the SSCOs only with effect
from 01.01.2025;
(iv) The Intervenor-SSCWOs, who have been granted stay
on release from service by this Court and who are
aggrieved by the results of the Boards convened after 2021
in which they have been denied PC, may pursue their
remedies in accordance with the law. If their challenges
are already pending before the AFT or the High Court,
they may continue to pursue such claims. While pursuing
such remedies, the stay granted on their release from
service shall remain in operation, subject to the
modification, if any, that may be made by the AFT or the
High Court, as the case may be; and
(v) For all future Selection Boards, the Respondents shall
issue appropriate General Instructions, prior to the
conduct of such Board, laying down: the vacancies
available in each branch/stream for each batch; the
detailed criteria for evaluation along with the
apportionment of marks for each criterion; and any other
information that may be necessary to supply to the officers
under consideration for that purpose.”
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 11 of 16

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
th
24 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 12 of 16

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
th
from the Judgment dated 24 March, 2026.
43. As such, in our opinion, the impugned order passed by the
rd
Tribunal on 23 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 13 of 16

significance of said date in view of the direction and liberty
ordered by the Apex Court.
th
45. The plain reading of para 39(iv) of the Judgment dated 24
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
th
when the order was passed by the Apex Court, i.e. , on 24
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
th
mandate of the Judgment dated 24 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.
rd
48. That being so, the impugned order dated 23 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 14 of 16

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
th
hearing both the sides, the interim order dated 29 June, 2026
passed by this Court in these matters also needs continuation to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 15 of 16

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:26:20
W.P.(C) 8371/2026 and connected matters Page 16 of 16