Stay of discharge cannot be granted where balance of convenience and lack of irreparable injury favor the state.

The Petitioner, a Major in the Indian Army, challenged an interim order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (Tribunal).

The Tribunal had refused to stay the operation of a release order dated 16.12.2025, which directed the Petitioner’s discharge from service.

The Petitioner contended that his case was covered by the Supreme Court’s stay order in Lt Col Pooja Pal & Ors. v. Union of India regarding Permanent Commission.

Conversely, the Respondents argued the case was distinguishable as the Petitioner was denied an extension based on a lack of recommendation by the Selection Board due to his overall merit profile.

1. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to an interim stay on his discharge order pending the final disposal of his Original Application (O.A.) before the Tribunal.

2. Whether the balance of convenience and the principle of irreparable loss favored the grant of interim relief in matters of military service extension.

The Court applied the principles governing the grant of interim injunctions, specifically the "balance of convenience" and "irreparable injury."

It relied on the precedent set in Union of India & Ors. v. Gulshan Saini [W.P.(C) 10180/2023], which establishes that if a service member is illegally discharged but later succeeds on merits, they can be reinstated with retrospective benefits and seniority, whereas allowing an unqualified person to remain in service via interim stay constitutes an "illegal usurpation of office."

The Court examined the Tribunal’s findings that the Petitioner’s profile had been assessed by reporting officers and a Selection Board, which did not recommend him for Permanent Commission or extension.

The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the "balance of convenience" did not favor the Petitioner because his continued service, if eventually found unjustified, would be detrimental to the institution.

Regarding "irreparable loss," the Court reasoned that any injury caused by discharge is not legally irreparable because, should the Petitioner succeed in his main petition, the law provides for full consequential benefits and reinstatement.

The Court clarified that the Tribunal’s observations were only a prima facie view and did not conclude the final merits of the O.A.

The Court held that the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold for a stay on his discharge order, as reinstatement remains a viable remedy in the event of ultimate success.

The Court further noted that the precedents cited by the Petitioner (Annexures P-4 and P-5) were either subject to vacation applications or factually distinguishable.