Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the order passed by the Armed forces Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the application of the appellant and declined her prayer for reliefs similar to the ones granted by the judgment dated 22-01-2014 of the AFT Principal Bench to the applicants therein, who were identically situated with the appellant , the division bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, exercised its powers under Article of the , directing that the appellant be granted a Permanent Commission with effect from the same date as the similarly situated persons who were granted benefits pursuant to the judgment dated 22-01-2014 by the Principal Bench of the AFT.
Background:
This case involves an appellant who was commissioned as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Army Dental Corps (AD Corps) on 10-03-2008. At the time, she was 27 years, 11 months, and 28 days old, and she was entitled to three attempts at the departmental examination for permanent commission, with an age relaxation provision.
The appellant could not qualify in the first two attempts, one after completing two years of service and another after four years of service. Her service was extended for another five years, and by 9-03-2013, she had completed five years of service and was eligible for her third attempt, subject to the age relaxation up to the full period of reckonable service.
However, on 20-03-2013, amendments were made to the relevant regulations. These amendments resulted in the deletion of Para 4(b) and the amendment of Para 4(a), which limited the age relaxation to 35 years and confined it to those with a Post Graduate qualification (Masters in Dental Surgery). As a result, the appellant was deprived of her third chance.
Officers in similar situations, who were also deprived of their third chance due to the amendments, filed a case before the Armed Forces Tribunal (‘AFT’). The AFT upheld the amendments but granted relief by directing the respondents to grant a one-time age relaxation to officers who were in a similar position as the applicants and had joined as SSC Officers before the amendment. The appellant did not join the litigation as she was on maternity leave and had delivered her child in July 2013.
Following the AFT’s decision, permanent commissions were granted to those officers who were eligible before the amendment but could not avail themselves of their third chance. However, the appellant was not considered for this relief because she was not part of the original application.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court remarked that the phrase “Only to the Petitioners” in the order rejecting the representation is patently erroneous. While the AFT Principal Bench granted relief to the petitioners, it did not prohibit the department from considering similarly situated persons.
The Bench reiterated 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 favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. However, it clarified that in exceptional cases where the court has expressly prohibited the extension of the benefit to those who have not approached the court till then or in cases where a grievance in personam is redressed, the matter may acquire a different dimension, and the department may be justified in denying the relief to an individual who claims the extension of the benefit of the said judgment.
The Court said that the respondent authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the judgment of AFT, Principal Bench to the appellant.
By using the example of Indian soldiers serving in extreme and challenging conditions, such as those at Siachen, the Court illustrated that service members are often focused on their duty and the conditions they face, rather than on the perks or the intricacies of policy and regulations. Given this context, it would be unreasonable and unjust to deny relief to individuals who are similarly situated, simply because they were not part of the original group that filed the case.
In response to the respondents’ argument that only the applicants who filed the original case should receive relief, the Court rejected this position. The Court argued that adopting such a stand would effectively endorse an unfair and unreasonable approach by the authorities, one that could result in treating similarly situated individuals unequally.
The Court emphasized the principle of equality and fairness by highlighting the identical situation of the appellant and the applicants. The Court found no reason why the appellant, who was similarly situated, should not be entitled to the same relief granted to the applicants in the earlier case.
“If the applicants whom we find are identically situated to the appellant were found to be eligible to be given a third chance for promotion, because they acquired eligibility before the amendment on 20-03-2013, we find no reason why the appellant should not be treated alike”, the Court said
The Court found no significant delay in the appellant’s approach to the Tribunal. While the appellant had been actively seeking justice since 2014, there was a gap between 2017 and 2021, which was primarily due to specific circumstances. Between August 2017 and 2019, the appellant was posted in Arunachal Pradesh, during which time she made a second representation. Subsequently, the delay from March 2020 to January 2021 was attributable to the unprecedented challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Recognizing these factors, the Court determined that the appellant should not be penalized for the delay, particularly given the clear case of discrimination she had presented.
The Court also took note of the appellant’s dedication and exemplary service as a woman officer in the Army and held that the appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration for a permanent commission, especially when other similarly situated officers were granted the same. It acknowledged that eleven years had passed since the appellant’s eligibility for promotion, and it would be unjust to subject her to the rigorous parameters introduced by the 2013 amendment, particularly considering that she is now nearly 45 years of age. The Court emphasized that no fault lay with the appellant for her exclusion, and that she should not be penalized for circumstances beyond her control, including the regulatory changes and her absence from the initial litigation.
In exercise of its powers under Article of the , the Court directed that the appellant be granted a Permanent Commission. The Court ordered that the appellant’s case be taken up for the grant of Permanent Commission and that she be extended the benefit of Permanent Commission with effect from the same date as the similarly situated persons who were granted benefits pursuant to the judgment dated 22-01-2014 by the Principal Bench of the AFT. The Court further directed that all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion, and monetary benefits (including arrears), be extended to the appellant. The Court set a clear timeline for implementation, ordering that the above directions be carried out within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
[Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022, decided on 09-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
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.
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .