SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 304

SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Neeraj Kumar – 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

Judgement Key Points

What is the impact of delay in seeking judicial relief on claims for reinstatement and Permanent Commission by released SSCOs?

Key Points: - Two former male Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) of the Indian Air Force appealed against the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) order dated 15.05.2024 dismissing their Original Application No. 379/2011 for reinstatement and grant of Permanent Commission [1]. - Appellants' claim relied on AFT decision in Sqn. Ldr. Lalit Kumar Tandon v. Union of India (2011 SCCOnLine AFT 191) and Supreme Court judgment in AU Tayyaba v. Union of India ((2023) 5 SCC 688) [2]. - Discretionary reliefs in Lalit Kumar Tandon and AU Tayyaba were granted because SSCOs acted promptly after High Court judgment in Babita Puniya v. Secretary (2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116) [4]. - Appellants were inducted in 1998, considered for PC in 2002 (declined, granted 6-year extension), not considered in 2009 due to HR Policy 21/2006 discontinuing PC from 2006 [5]. - Appellants voluntarily sought release from service instead of 4-year extension and were released on 25.06.2009; they secured private sector employment [6]. - Appellants filed OA No. 379/2011 on 06.09.2011, which was 18 months after Babita Puniya, 7 months after Lalit Kumar Tandon, and over 2 years after their voluntary release [7]. - Court dismissed appeal, following precedents dismissing similar belated claims by voluntarily released and employed officers [8]. - Appeal dismissed for lack of diligence and timeliness [9].

What is the impact of delay in seeking judicial relief on claims for reinstatement and Permanent Commission by released SSCOs?


Table of Content
1. appeal filing and comparison with previous cases. (Para 1 , 2)
2. delays and procedural grounds in filing. (Para 3 , 4 , 7)
3. appellants' request for service reinstatement after voluntary exit. (Para 5 , 6)
4. dismissal of appeal based on precedent. (Para 8 , 9)

ORDER :

SURYA KANT, CJI.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by two former male Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) of the Indian Air Force, challenging the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi (AFT) in Original Application (OA) No. 379/2011, whereby the Appellants’ prayer for reinstatement into service in the Indian Air Force and for consequential consideration for the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) has been dismissed.

2. The claim of the Appellants traces its genesis to the decision of the AFT in Sqn. Ldr. Lalit Kumar Tandon and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , 2011 SCCOnLine AFT 191 Subsequently, during the pendency of the OA, this Court delivered its judgement in AU Tayyaba v. Union of India , (2023) 5 SCC 688. Relying upon the said decision, the Appellants have further sought parity with those SSCOs who were released from service but were dir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top