Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel – Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India And Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022
Decided On : 09-12-2024
Service Law – Permanent Commission in Indian Army [Para 12 of Army Instruction 15 of 79 and Para 4(a) and 4(b) of AI 37 of 78] – Claim based on parity – Where a citizen aggrieved by an action of government department has approached court and obtained declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without need for them to go to court – In exceptional cases where court has expressly prohibited extension of benefit to those who have not approached court till then or in cases where a grievance in personam is redressed, matter may acquire a different dimension and department may be justified in denying relief to an individual who claims extension of benefit of said judgment – Principal Bench of AFT after clearly holding that applicants therein were denied third chance directed consideration of their cases for permanent absorption by granting one-time age relaxation by considering them under unamended policy – Respondents have not been able to point out any valid justification as to how applicants who obtained benefit from AFT, are not identically situated with appellant – No reason why appellant should not be treated alike – Appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration when other similarly situated officers were considered and granted permanent commission – Appellant’s case to be taken up for grant of Permanent Commission and she be extended benefit of Permanent Commission with effect from same date similarly situated persons who obtained benefits – All consequential benefits like seniority, promotion and monetary benefits, including arrears shall be extended to appellant. (Paras 14, 16, 17, 19, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges order of Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Regional Bench, Lucknow dated 05.01.2022 in Original Application No. 241 of 2021. By said order, AFT dismissed application of appellant and declined her prayer for reliefs similar to ones granted by judgment dated 22.01.2014 of AFT Principal Bench in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 and batch, to applicants therein. Appellant claims that those applicants were identically situated with her.
Findings of Court:
Appellant - a woman officer has continuously worked since 2007 and even as late as on 31.10.2017, she was granted extension of another four years of service, and she continues to be in service thereafter also on account of status quo granted by this Court on 08.03.2022. Not only this, appellant was awarded Commendation Card by Chief of Army Staff on 14.01.2019. Appellant has had a distinguished service and is now posted as Lieutenant Colonel in Army Dental Corps at Agra.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. This appeal challenges the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Regional Bench, Lucknow dated 05.01.2022 in Original Application No. 241 of 2021. By the said order, the AFT 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 in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 and batch, to the applicants therein. The appellant claims that those applicants were identically situated with her.
2. The appellant on 10.03.2008 was commissioned as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Army Dental Corps (AD Corps). She was at that time 27 years 11 months and 28 days of age. The regulation, as it then stood, entitled her to three chances for taking up the departmental examination for permanent commission. It also provided extension of age limit. The relevant clauses, namely, Para 12 of Army Instruction 15 of 79 and Para 4(a) and 4(b) of AI 37 of 78 read as under:
Paras 4(a) and 4(b) of Annexure ‘A’ to the AI 37/78
“(a) Candidates must not have attained 28 years of age on 31st December of the year of receipt of application from them. This age limit may be extended upto 30 years by the Government of India on the recommendation of the AD Corps Selection Board in the case of candidates with additional Post- Graduate qualifications.
(b) A candidate with previous commissioned service in the Army Dental Corps will be entitled to extension of the above age limits as given below:-
Full period of previous reckonable service if such service was rendered while in possession of dental qualification recognized by the Dental Council of India (vide para 3 above) .” (Emphasis supplied)
3. It is undisputed that the appellant could not qualify in the first two chances on completion of two years of service and four years of service respectively. On 15.11.2012, her services were extended for another five years. By 9th of March 2013 the appellant had completed five years of service and was eligible to avail of her third chance, subject to age relaxation up to the full period of reckonable service.
4. However, on 20th of March, 2013, amendments were carried out to clause 4(a) and 4(b) of AI 37 of 78 as amended in AI 15 of 79, inasmuch as, while Para 4(a) was amended, Para 4(b) came to be deleted. The amended Para 4(a) of AI 37 of 78 introduced on 20.03.2013, reads as under:
“(a) Para 4(a) of Annexure ‘A’ to AI 37/78
Candidates must not have attained 30 years of age on 31st December of the year of receipt of application form from them for Departmental Permanent Commission. The age limit may be extended up to 35 years in respect of those candidates who are in receipt of PG qualification of Masters in Dental Surgery duly recognized by Dental Council of India, at the time of initial commission to Army Dental Corps.”
5. The net result was the appellant was deprived of her third chance since the extension was capped at 35 years and was confined to those who were in receipt of PG qualification of Masters in Dental Surgery on and from 20.03.2013.
6. According to the appellant, Officers similarly situated with the appellant who were also not given an opportunity to appear for the clinical test and interview, in view of the amendment, quickly moved applications before the AFT, Principal Bench in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 and batch of matters raising various contentions and contended that they have been wrongly deprived of availing the third chance for no fault of theirs. Though the amendments to the policy
Permanent Commission in Indian Army – Where a citizen aggrieved by an action of government department has approached court and obtained declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated....
No SSC officer can claim permanent commission as a matter of right, only have a right to be considered as per extant rules.
No serving officer has a right to a permanent commission, eligibility must conform to established policies, overriding any inadvertent errors in promotions or advertisements.
Seniority depression for delayed joining on own request upheld per rules; claims barred by delay, non-joinder; no parity with dissimilar cases; statutory rules govern over equity claims.
Belated minor age shortfall objection invalid after judicially sanctioned appointment list inclusion; statutory relaxation warranted to prevent hardship.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
