The Supreme Court on Monday (December 9) ruled in favor of a female Army Lieutenant Colonel, granting her permanent commission after she was unfairly left out while others in similar situations were extended the same benefit.
The appellant-Lt. Col, commissioned as a Short Service Commission (SSC) Officer in the Army Dental Corps in 2008, assailed the Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) decision which had not considered her case for permanent commissioning. The appellant along with other applicants was entitled to three chances to secure a permanent commission. However, following an amendment in 2013 in the original policy, the appellant was denied the third opportunity for permanent commission, which other officers similarly situated had been granted.
The AFT granted relief to other applicants by allowing them a one-time age relaxation. However, the appellant was denied benefit as she was not a party to the original case due to personal difficulties.
Setting aside the AFT’s order, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that denying the benefit of permanent commission to the appellant when other similarly situated applicants were extended the benefits of the permanent commission shows discrimination with the appellant.
The Court said if other officers were given age relaxation and considered under the old policy, the appellant should have received the same benefit.
Moreover, the court rejected the argument that since the appellant didn’t join the litigation therefore she was not entitled to receive the benefit granted to those who litigated. Instead, upon placing reliance on the cases of Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others (1975) and K.I. Shephard and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1987) the Court observed that “where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favor, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court.”
Moreover, the Court noted the respondent authorities should have automatically extended the same benefit to the appellant.
“The respondent authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the judgment of AFT, Principal Bench in OA No.111 of 2013 and batch to the appellant. To illustrate, take the case of the valiant Indian soldiers bravely guarding the frontiers at Siachen or in other difficult terrain. Thoughts on conditions of service and job perquisites will be last in their mind. Will it be fair to tell them that they will not be given relief even if they are similarly situated, since the judgment they seek to rely on, was passed in the case of certain applicants alone who moved the court? We think that would be a very unfair scenario. Accepting the stand of the respondents in this case would result in this Court putting its imprimatur on an unreasonable stand adopted by the authorities.”, the judgment authored by Viswanathan J. said.
Consequently, upon setting the impugned order, the Court directed the respondents to:
a. Grant the appellant a permanent commission with effect from the same date as similarly situated officers, and
b. Extend all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotions, and arrears.
“We direct that the appellant’s case be taken up for grant of Permanent Commission and she be extended the benefit of Permanent Commission with effect from the same date the similarly situated persons who obtained benefits pursuant 16 to the judgment dated 22.01.2014 in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 of the Principal Bench of the AFT. All consequential benefits like seniority, promotion and monetary benefits, including arrears shall be extended to the appellant. The above directions shall be implemented within a period of four weeks from today.”, the court held.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija,Sr.Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. S S Rebello, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv.
Case Title: LT. COL. SUPRITA CHANDEL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 961