Interim Protection Against Service Release Continues for Intervening Officers Pending Final Tribunal Adjudication

The petitioners are Short Service Commission (SSC) officers in the Indian Air Force who were denied Permanent Commission (PC).

They challenged the rejection of their applications for ad-interim protection by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

Specifically, in W.P.(C) 8371/2026, the AFT rejected the stay on the petitioner’s release from service, despite her being an intervenor in a Supreme Court matter (Wg. Cdr. Sucheta Edn. v. Union of India) where stay orders had been granted.

The AFT held that such relief was unavailable because the original applications were filed after the Supreme Court's judgment dated 24th March 2026.

1. Whether the interim protection against release from service, granted by the Supreme Court to intervenors, automatically continues during the pendency of subsequent proceedings before the AFT.

2. Whether the filing date of an Original Application (before or after 24th March 2026) affects the entitlement to interim relief under the Supreme Court's mandate.

The court primarily applied the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Sucheta Edn. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal 3870/2026), specifically Paragraph 39(iv), which mandates that the stay granted on the release of Intervenor-SSCWOs shall remain in operation while they pursue legal remedies, subject only to modification by the AFT or High Court.

It also noted the principle regarding the continuation of interim orders from High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2024) 6 SCC 267.

The High Court observed that under Para 39(iv) of the Sucheta Edn. judgment, interim relief (stay on release) was ipso facto continued for intervenors before the Tribunal; there was no requirement to apply afresh.

The AFT erred in vacating the stay suo motu without an application for modification or vacation by the respondents.

The Court further clarified that the Supreme Court's directions did not restrict relief to those whose challenges were already pending on 24th March 2026; rather, it provided a continuing protection for those pursuing remedies against the denial of PC.

For petitioners who were not intervenors in the Supreme Court, the Court held that judicial discipline required maintaining the interim protection until their claims regarding the denial of PC were heard.

It held that for intervenors, the Supreme Court’s stay continues until expressly modified or vacated by the Tribunal upon a written request by the respondent.

The writ petitions were allowed, and the stay applications were disposed of in favor of the petitioners.