New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (December 9) granted a woman Army officer permanent commission, saying 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.
A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea by the woman Army officer posted as Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Dental Corps at Agra challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Regional Bench Lucknow, dismissing her plea and declining her prayer for reliefs granted to others by the AFT principal bench.
What did the apex court illustrate?
“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.
Apex Court set aside AFT, Regional Bench order
The bench set aside the AFT, Regional Bench order, saying the woman Army officer was wrongly excluded from the consideration when other similarly placed officers were given the benefit.
“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. That is not the situation here,” the bench said and added that the respondent authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the judgment of AFT, Principal Bench and batch to the appellant.
Appellant was commissioned as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in Army Dental Corps in March 2008
The appellant on March 10, 2008 was commissioned as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Army Dental Corps 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 extension of age limit.
What was the case?
The woman Army officer could not qualify in the first two chances on completion of two years of service and four years of service respectively. Her services were extended for another five years on November 15, 2012 and 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. However, on March 20, 2013, amendments were carried out and 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.
Could not join officers in litigation before Principal Bench as was in advance stage of pregnancy, woman Army officer
The woman Army officer told the court that similarly placed officers quickly moved the AFT, Principal Bench, which granted them permanent commission and she could not join the officers in litigation before the Principal Bench as she was in her advance stage of pregnancy.
Appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration: Apex Court
“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 apex court said and added, “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 of the Principal Bench of the AFT. All consequential benefits like seniority, promotion and monetary benefits, including arrears shall be extended to the appellant. The above directions shall be implemented within a period of four weeks from today.”
