LAC R N BIJARNIYA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

$~36 to 40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 16.11.2023

+ W.P.(C) 6108/2021
LAC R N BIJARNIYA ….. Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….. Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 306/2022 & CM APPL. 23886/2023
LAC DEEPAK KUMAR SANODIYA (914065-G) ..…Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ….. Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 5912/2022

LAC ARUN KUMAR ….. Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….. Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 7269/2022
LAC RAJESH ….. Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….. Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 12182/2022 & CM APPL. 59115/2023
ASHISH MISHRA & ANR. ….. Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anurag and Mr. Gunmayay S. Mann, Advocates.
Mr. Madhav Bhatia, Mr. Shreshth Arya, Mr. Aditya Pandey and Mr. Prakash Pandey, Advocates.
Mr. Bharat Singh, Dr. Abhay Upadhaya, Mr.B.P. Vaishnav & Ms.Birjesh Sharma, Advocates.
Mr. Ajit Kakkar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal and Mr. Nitin Chandra, Advocates.
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for respondents No.1 to R-7 in W.P. (C) 12182/2022.
Mr. Pavan Narang, Senior Penal Counsel with Mr. Himanshu Sethi and Ms. Aishwarya Chhabra, Advocate for respondents in W.P. (C) 5912/2022.
Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, Mr. Sandeep Singh Somaria and Ms. Shivangi Gumber, Advocates in W.P. (C) 306/2022.
Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC with Mr. Sandeep Mishra and Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Advocate for UOI in W.P. © 7269/2022.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

CM. APPL. 59115/2023 in W.P. (C) 12182/2022
1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner on 26.07.2023 had stated that he was willing for re-mustering. It is pointed out that the said statement was made without prejudice to his rights and contentions and without giving up his right to seek discharge in terms of AFI-12/F/48. He submits that petitioner is being asked to continue for a period of six years and being asked to give specific declaration that he shall accept further service of six years and accordingly petitioner does not wish to continue with his willingness of re-mustering. He accordingly seeks modification of the said order.
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondents.
3. In view of the above statement, the application is allowed. Statement of the petitioner that he is no longer willing for re-mustering is taken on record.
W.P.(C) 6108/2021, W.P.(C) 306/2022 & CM APPL. 23886/2023, W.P.(C) 5912/2022, W.P.(C) 7269/2022 & W.P.(C) 12182/2022

4. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench in W.P. (C) 9139/2019, Squadron Leader Neelam Chahar Vs. Union of India and Ors. and other connected matters and since policy decisions are being impugned, the Armed Forces Tribunal would be competent authority to hear the challenge as raised in these petitions.
5. Accordingly, all these petitions are transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench for adjudication. Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal.
6. Petitions shall be listed before the Tribunal on 09.01.2024.
7. Dasti under signature of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

NOVEMBER 16, 2023/NA MANOJ JAIN, J

W.P.(C) 6108/2021 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 3 of 3