Sqn. Ldr. Nitu Thapliyal vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 303

SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Sqn. Ldr. Nitu Thapliyal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Menka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Garima Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Hansdeep Singh, Adv. Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Ms. Divyanshi Maurya, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar, AOR Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Ms. S. Ambica, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Deepali Atreja, Adv. Mr. Rahul Thukral, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Huzefa A Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Krishna, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singh, Adv. Ms. Shruti Sharan, Adv. Mr. Dev Vrat Anand, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jad, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Madhav Singhal, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dham, Adv. Col Mukul Dev, Adv. Mr. Akshay Bhandari, AOR Mrs. Shriya Gilhotra, Adv. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv. Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Ms. Divyanshi Maurya, Adv. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sahil Kalia, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mohit Garg, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gill, Adv. Mr. Sahil Chandra, AOR

ORDER :

SURYA KANT, CJI.

1. Permission to file the Miscellaneous Applications is granted.

2. The instant Applications have been filed by 10 Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs), who were Appellants and Intervenor-Applicants before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 192 – 196/2012. They seek specific directions regarding the implementation of the judgement of this Court in AU Tayyaba v. Union of India , (2023) 5 SCC 688 by which the said Civil Appeals were disposed of.

3. To adduce the facts in a nutshell, the Applicants were inducted into the Indian Air Force on Short Service Commission (SSC) between 1993 and 1998. However, due to the erstwhile policies of the Respondent-Authorities, whereby SSCWOs were not considered eligible for the grant of Permanent Commission (PC), they were consequently released from service without being considered for the same.

4. Meanwhile, in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) instituted before it, the High Court of Delhi (High Court), by its judgement dated 12.03.2010 in Babita Puniya v. Secretary , 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116 struck down such policies as being unfair and directed reinstatement of the affected SSCWOs, along with reconsideration of thei