LT. COL. MANSI GAUTAM vs UNION OF INDIA

Judgment text excerpt

$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20.02.2025 + W.P.(C) 2250/2025 LT. COL. MANSI GAUTAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr.Sushil Kumar Pandey, SPC with Mr.Vedansh Anand, GP, Mr.Hemant Mishra, Ms.Richa Pandey and Ms.Neha Yadav, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 10623/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 10624/2025 2. This is an application seeking permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates. 3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. 4. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 2250/2025 & CM APPL. 10625/2025 5. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2250/2025 Page 1 of 3 By:SUNIL Signing Date:25.02.2025 11:08:12 Order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application (‘O.A.’). 324/2025 titled Lt Col Mansi Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. By the Impugned Order, the learned Tribunal has merely issued notice in the O.A. filed by the petitioner and has not considered the interim relief prayed for by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s claim for consideration for a permanent commission is covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3664. He submits that this aspect has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while passing the Impugned Order. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits on ins