Writ Petition Closed; Petitioner Directed to Approach Supreme Court for Relief.

The petitioner, Lt. Col. Harpreet Kaur Bahia, challenged an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal dated May 30, 2025, in Original Application No. 280/2024, which affirmed the denial of permanent commission to her, and also challenged an impugned order dated February 26, 2026, issued by the respondents regarding her release from service consequent to the denial of Permanent Commission (PC).

The petitioner sought a permanent commission in the Army based on the judgment in Lt. Col. Nitisha and Ors. v. Union of India, and stated that an identical issue was pending before the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Pooja Pal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9747-9757/2024), where judgment had been reserved.

The petitioner sought protection, arguing that she should not be released from service pending the Supreme Court's decision.

The respondents stated that pursuant to the Tribunal's decision, they had proceeded to release the petitioner from service on March 16, 2026, and highlighted that the Tribunal's order was based on the petitioner's counsel's submission, leading to her release on March 16, 2026.

The petitioner's counsel requested an extension of 15 days to enable the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court before her scheduled release on March 16, 2026.

1. Whether the Impugned Judgment dated May 30, 2025, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal and the order dated February 26, 2026, denying permanent commission to the petitioner and ordering her release, should be quashed.

2. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to take action in terms of directions from the Supreme Court in CA 9747-9757/2024.

3. Whether, pending a decision from the Supreme Court on similar matters, the petitioner should be granted interim protection from release from service.

The court primarily considered the pending litigation before the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Pooja Pal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9747-9757/2024), which involved identical issues regarding permanent commission in the Army.

It also implicitly acknowledged the ongoing relevance of the Supreme Court's judgment in Lt. Col. Nitisha and Ors. v. Union of India regarding permanent commissions.

The specific legal principle applied was the need for a litigant to approach the highest court for relief when a similar issue is reserved for judgment there, and the High Court's power to grant interim relief to facilitate such an approach.

The court noted that the petitioner was challenging a Tribunal order that denied her permanent commission and affirmed her release, and that her primary contention was based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Lt. Col. Nitisha and Ors. v. Union of India.

Crucially, the court recognized that an identical issue was pending before the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Pooja Pal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., where judgment had already been reserved.

Given that the Supreme Court had granted protection to officers in similar cases and had reserved judgment on the matter, the High Court concluded that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court directly for relief.

Recognizing the impending release date of March 16, 2026, and to ensure that the petitioner had an opportunity to seek recourse from the Supreme Court, the High Court exercised its discretion to extend the petitioner's release date for a limited period.

Instead, it concluded that the petitioner should approach the Supreme Court, as identical issues were already reserved for judgment there.

To enable the petitioner to do so, the court ordered the extension of her release from service till March 23, 2026, at 5 P.M.

The petition was accordingly closed.