Read Time: 15 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on December 9, 2024 emphasised that when a citizen aggrieved by the actions of a government department approaches the court and obtains a declaration of law in their favour, others in similar situations should also receive the same benefit without needing to approach the court.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan, however, added, "No doubt, 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 allowed an appeal filed by Lt Col Suprita Chandel against the Armed Forces Tribunal's order of January 5, 2022, which declined her plea for giving her three chances for departmental examinations for permanent commission and extension of age relaxation. She claimed those who were similarly situated had been granted such chances.

The bench opined that the appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration when other similarly situated officers were considered and granted permanent commission.

"Today, eleven years have elapsed. It will not be fair to subject her to the rigors of the 2013 parameters as she is now nearly 45 years of age. There has been no fault on the part of the appellant," the bench said.

Considering the peculiar facts of the case and since nothing adverse was brought to the notice on the woman's performance, the bench in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed that the appellant ought to be given Permanent Commission.

Court quashed and set aside the AFT's order and issued a direction to the respondent authorities to implement the order and extend all consequential benefits like seniority, promotion and monetary benefits, including arrears to her within a period of four weeks.

"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 to the judgment dated 22.01.2014 of the Principal Bench of the AFT," the bench ordered.

The appellant was commissioned on March 10, 2008 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.

Having failed to qualify in the first two chances, by March 9, 2013, she 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.

On March 20, 2013, an amendment was carried out in rules. The net result was she 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 March 20, 2013.

The appellant claimed the Officers similarly situated, 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, which granted them relief.

The appellant claimed she could not join the applicants therein in the litigation as she was in her advance stage of pregnancy and while posted at Bareilly, she proceeded on maternity leave on May 16, 2013. She delivered a child on July 01, 2013.

Though the other were granted permanent commission, she was not considered as she was not part of the original application, she claimed. 

A representation sent by her on September 6, 2014, did not yield any favourable result. She then approached the AFT Regional Bench Lucknow which dismissed her application.

The top court held that the phrase “Only to the Petitioners” in the order rejecting her representation was patently erroneous.

Having examined the officer's appeal, the bench said, "The appellant’s case is founded on the principle of discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. 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".

Giving the reasons, the bench said respondents had not been able to point out any valid justification as to how the applicants who obtained the benefit from the AFT, Principal Bench and batch were not identically situated with the appellant.

"Like the applicants who succeeded, the appellant was also ripe for the third chance before the amended para 4(a) of AI No. 37 of 1978 was introduced on 20.03.2013. The Principal Bench of the AFT after clearly holding that the applicants therein were denied the third chance directed consideration of their cases for permanent absorption by granting one-time age relaxation by considering them under the unamended policy," the bench noted.

After considering the submissions of the counsel and perusing the records, the bench said, "We are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to parity with those applicants who succeeded before the AFT, Principal Bench".

The court further opined that respondent authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the judgment of AFT, Principal Bench 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 bench said.

The court also found no delay in the appellant approaching the Tribunal as she had been seeking justice from 2014 and the only delay between 2017 to 2021 after the withdrawal of the earlier applications with liberty, was due to the fact that between August, 2017 and 2019 she was posted in Arunachal Pradesh and it was during this time that the appellant made a second representation. Thereafter, the period between March, 2020 and January, 2021 was on account of Covid-19 pandemic.

"In any event, since a clear case of discrimination has been made out, we do not want to non-suit the appellant on the ground of delay. We say so on the special facts of this case," the bench said.

The court also noted that the appellant - a woman officer, continuously worked since 2007 and she had been awarded Commendation Card by the Chief of Army Staff on January 14, 2019.

"It is also undisputed that the appellant has had a distinguished service and is now posted as Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Dental Corps at Agra," the bench highlighted while granting her the relief. 

Case Title: Lt Col Suprita Chandel Vs Union of India And Others