2 1-27 & 78. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 628/2010 % Judgment Dell vered on: 23.05.2011 WG CDR UJJWALA SHALIGRAM & ORS . .....Petitioners Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs. versus PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS Respondents Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI + CONT.CAS(C) 731/2010 SQ [DR AJITA VARGHESE & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs. versus PRADEEP KU MAR & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI + CONT.CAS(C). 832/2010 SQN LEADER KAMNA KHATRI & ORS .....Petitioners Through : Mr. D.K. Monga, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents U' Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI. ± CONT.CAS(C) 855/2010 BABLIA PUNIYA ..... . Petitioners Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs. versus UN ION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI + CONT.CAS(C) 43/2011 SQ [DR NEHA PURl & ORS Through CoNJ:cAs(c) 62812010, CO/vT (57 5(C) 131/20 10, c01w;cns(c:7 1(17/20.10, coNI:cns(C) 85512070. C( )A1I:AS(() 43/2011, cOri/;(As(C) 16112071. CONS CAS(C) 248/20.11, C007:CA5(7 -:)346/2011 Petitioners Ms. Rekha PatI, Ms. Purnima Singh and Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs. /'C 7 074 ) Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified versus PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI + CONT.CAS(C) 161/2011 SQ LDR PRANAV SHARMA & ORS . ......Petitioners Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs. versus • AIR CHIEF MARSHAL PV NAIK & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI Mr. Ravinder Agarwal and Mr. Nitish Gupta, Advs. for respondent Air Force. + CONT.CAS(C) 248/2011 NAMITA ANAND SHARMA & ORS .....Petitioners Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs. versus PV NAIK & ORS . .....Respondents Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI + CONT.CAS(C) 346/2011 SQ LDR FAHEEMA AFZAL & ORS ......Petitioners Through Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Purnima Singh and Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs. versus AIR CHIEF MARSHAL PV NAIK & ORS ... .. Respondents Through : Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for UOI. CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CONJCAS(C) 62812010, CON7:cAs(c) 731/2010, coNTcns(c) 832120.10, C0NTcAS(c,7 855/2010. cOArr,cnS(c) 4312011, CW7cAS(6 .761/2011, coArI:cns(c) 248120,11, CON7:cA5(c) 34612011 /'agc 2 of-I 4 G.S.SISTANI, 1. (ORAL) 1. Mr. Ankur Chh.ibber, learned counsel for the respondent UOl, submits that present contempt petitions be dismissed as infructuous in view of the fact that on 23.5.2011 following order has been passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 4830/2010: 111. Learned counsel for the respondents states that on 22.052011 the Hon'ble Minister for Defence has accorded approval to grant permanent commission to short serving commission female officers in certain wings of the Air Force who were commissioned prior to 25.05.2006 but upon certain terms and conditions and that the writ petitioners of the above captioned writ petitions would be covered by the decision taken thereby making them eligible to be considered for grant of permanent commission as per the policy framed which would require the officers to be appraised for their assessment to determine whether they meet the qualitative requirements of the service and for which they would be considered by a Board so constituted. We note that the policy decision taken, vide para 13 thereof, envisages extension of tenure of short service commission officers who 'were due for retirement; extended tenure would be the period they would otherwise superannuate till their appraisal is done by the Board and final decision taken. Thus, the aforesaid two writ petitions stand disposed of directing respondents to grant extension of tenure to such officers who are likely to retire before the Board appraisal takes place and formal orders are issued. Further directions are issued to constitute the Board within a reasonable time and appraise the writ petitioners in accordance with the policy for grant of permanent commission in the Indian Air Force." 2. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondent UOI, further submits that he has instructions to state that the orderpassed by a Division Bench of this Court shall he complied with within three months from today. Respondent UOl shall be bound by the statement made by counsel in Court today. CQN7:c15(c) 628120.70, cowl: CAS(C) 1311201c, CONT cA 5(c,) 832'20.zQ, coArI:cnsc, 855/2010. CONT CA 5(c,) 431201.7, CONTcAS(ç .761/2011, CON!: A5() 24812017, COAT!: 015(0 34612011 Page 3014 Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for respondent UOl, however, submits that petitioner no.8 in CONT.CAS(C)NO.855/2010 cannot be given benefit of the order of the Division Bench and the statement made in Court today. Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cont.Cas(C)No.855/2010 submits that she also does not press the contempt petition qua petitioner no.8, however, seeks liberty to take appropriate remedy, which may be available in accordance with law. Accordingly contempt petitions stand dismissed as infructuous as the respondents have agreed •to comply with the order of the Division Bench. Liberty, as prayed, qua petitioner no.8 in Cont.Cas(C)No.85512010, is granted. G.S. SISTAN, J. / MAY 23, 2011 'msr CONTCAS(C) 62812010. CoNrcAS(c) 73J/2010. coN7:cAs(c) 83217010. CONTCAS(C) 85512. 010, coN7: CA5(C) 4312011, cowl: csc 16112011, coN7:cn5(c 24812011, CONTAS( 34612011 i',/: 4 ul