When Citizen Aggrieved By Govt. Action Obtains Declaration Of Law From Court, Others Similarly Situated Ought To Be Extended The Benefit: SC Grants Permanent Commission to Woman Lieutenant Colonel
The Supreme Court granted permanent commission to a woman Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Dental Corps and 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.
The appeal before the Apex Court challenged the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Regional Bench, Lucknow whereby the appellant’s prayer for reliefs similar to the ones granted by the judgment of the AFT Principal Bench was declined.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Viswanathan said, “We hold 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 appellant was commissioned as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Army Dental Corps (AD Corps), in the year 2008 and 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 an extension of age limit. The appellant could not qualify in the first two chances on completion of two years of service and four years of service respectively.
In March 9,2013 the appellant completed five years of service and was eligible to avail of her third chance. However, amendments were carried out to clause 4(a) and 4(b) of AI 37 of 78 as amended in AI 15 of 79.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 March 20, 2013.
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. Permanent commissions were granted to officers who were eligible prior to the amendment to avail a third chance but could not avail in view of the amendment. The appellant was not considered because she was not part of the Original Application as she was pregnant at that time.
The Bench, at the outset, said, “...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.”
Referring to the judgment in Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714, the Bench said, “It is a well settled principle of law 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.”
As per the Bench, the 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. The Principal Bench 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 respondent authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the judgment of AFT, Principal Bench in OA No.111 of 2013 and batch to the appellant”, it added.
The Bench further observed, “The appellant has 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.”
Noting that the appellant has had a distinguished service and is now posted as Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Dental Corps at Agra, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed that the appellant ought to be given Permanent Commission.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “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 16 to the judgment dated 22.01.2014 in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 of the Principal Bench of the AFT. All consequential benefits like seniority, promotion and monetary benefits, including arrears shall be extended to the appellant.”
Cause Title: Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel Appellant v. Union of India and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 942]
