“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,” the bench said.
It said accepting the stand of the respondents in this case would result in the apex court putting its imprimatur on an “unreasonable stand” adopted by the authorities.
The apex court delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by a woman officer, who is posted as Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Dental Corps at Agra, challenging a January, 2022 order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Regional Bench, Lucknow.
Observing she had had a distinguished service, the bench exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed the grant of permanent commission to her.
“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 January 22, 2014… of the Principal Bench of the AFT,” the bench said. She moved the top court challenging the January, 2022 order declining her prayer for reliefs similar to the ones granted by the January, 2014 verdict of the AFT principal bench. The bench noted that in March 2008, she was commissioned as a short service commissioned officer in the Army Dental Corps and the regulation, as it then stood, entitled her to three chances for taking up the departmental examination for permanent commission.
It further noted the regulation also provided extension of age limit.
The bench said on March 20, 2013, amendments were carried out as a result of which the officer 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 woman officer informed the bench that similarly-placed officers, who were also not given an opportunity to appear for the clinical test and interview, in view of the amendment, moved applications before the AFT principal bench.
The bench noted though the amendments to the policy were upheld, the AFT principal bench allowed the reliefs, including grant of one-time age relaxation in favour of the petitioners for seeking permanent absorption.
The woman officer said she could not join the applicants in the litigation at that time as she was in her advance stage of pregnancy.
The bench noted consequent to the order of the AFT principal bench, permanent commissions were granted to officers eligible prior to the amendment to avail a third chance but could not avail in view of the March 20, 2013 amendment.
It noted the woman officer was not considered because she was not part of the original application filed before the AFT principal bench.
“While the AFT principal bench granted relief to the petitioners, it did not prohibit the department from considering similarly-situated persons,” the bench said.
The bench said it was a well-settled principle of law that when a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in their favour, other similarly-placed persons ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court.
“Having considered the submissions of the counsel and perused the records, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to parity with those applicants who succeeded before the AFT, Principal Bench…,” it said.
The bench said the authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the judgment of AFT principal bench to the appellant.
“The appellant’s case is founded on the principle of discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander,” it said.
The bench noted the woman officer had been continuously working since 2007 and was awarded the commendation card by the Chief of Army Staff in January 2019.
“We hold that the appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration when other similarly situated officers were considered and granted permanent commission,” it said.
The bench said its directions be implemented within four weeks and all consequential benefits like seniority, promotion and monetary benefits, including arrears be extended to the appellant.
