The Supreme Court has ruled that Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel of the Army Dental Corps was unlawfully denied Permanent Commission despite being identically situated with other Short Service Commission officers who were granted one-time age relaxation pursuant to an earlier Armed Forces Tribunal judgment, and directed that she be granted Permanent Commission with full consequential benefits by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Case Details

• Case Title: Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Ors.
• Citation: 2024 INSC 942
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
• Date of Judgment: 9 December 2024
• Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
• Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022
• Impugned Order: Judgment dated 5 January 2022 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, in O.A. No. 241 of 2021
• Nature of Dispute: Denial of Permanent Commission on account of age ineligibility arising from a policy amendment, and refusal to extend parity with similarly situated officers who had earlier secured relief

Background of the Case

Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel was commissioned into the Army Dental Corps on 10 March 2008 as a Short Service Commissioned Officer.

At the time of her commissioning, she was 27 years, 11 months, and 28 days old. Her service conditions were governed by Army Instruction (AI) 15 of 1979 read with AI 37 of 1978, which regulated the grant of Permanent Commission to Short Service Commission officers in the Army Dental Corps.

Under the prevailing policy framework:

• SSC officers were entitled to three chances to qualify for Permanent Commission through a departmental examination.
• Two chances were available after completion of two years and before completion of four years of service.
• A third chance was available during an extended tenure, after completion of five years and before completion of eight years of service.
• Crucially, the policy allowed extension of the upper age limit by counting the full period of previous reckonable commissioned service.

The relevant provisions explicitly provided that a candidate with previous commissioned service in the Army Dental Corps would be entitled to extension of the age limit equivalent to the full period of such service, provided it was rendered while possessing a dental qualification recognised by the Dental Council of India.

Lt. Col. Chandel was unable to qualify in her first two attempts. However, her service was extended on 15 November 2012, and by 9 March 2013 she had completed five years of service, thereby becoming eligible to avail the third and final chance under the existing rules.

Policy Amendment of 20 March 2013

A critical turning point occurred on 20 March 2013, when the eligibility conditions for Permanent Commission were amended. The amendment brought about two significant changes:

• The general upper age limit was revised to 30 years.
• The age limit could be extended up to 35 years only for candidates who were in possession of a postgraduate qualification of Master of Dental Surgery recognised by the Dental Council of India at the time of initial commission.

Simultaneously, the earlier provision that permitted age relaxation by counting the full period of previous commissioned service was deleted.

Consequences of the Amendment

• Officers like Lt. Col. Chandel, who did not possess the specified postgraduate qualification, were rendered ineligible for Permanent Commission.
• This ineligibility arose despite the fact that such officers had already become eligible for the third chance before the amendment came into force.
• The amendment effectively curtailed vested expectations arising under the earlier policy.

The appellant’s case was that the amendment was applied to her retrospectively in effect, depriving her of an opportunity that had already accrued.

Earlier Litigation Before the Armed Forces Tribunal

Several officers of the Army Dental Corps who were similarly placed challenged the 2013 amendment before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Original Application No. 111 of 2013 and connected matters.

Findings of the AFT, Principal Bench (22 January 2014)

The Principal Bench upheld the validity of the amended policy but recognised the hardship caused to SSC officers who had become eligible for the third chance prior to the amendment but were prevented from availing it due to the policy change.

The Tribunal held that:

• The government had the power to relax the upper age limit to mitigate hardship.
• The deletion of the age-relaxation provision had rendered certain SSC officers ineligible through no fault of theirs.
• A one-time age relaxation was justified as an equitable measure.

Key Directions Issued by the Tribunal

• The amended policy was declared intra vires.
• Officers who were eligible in 2012 but became ineligible in 2013 due to the amendment were directed to be considered under the previous policy.
• A one-time age relaxation was ordered, similar to that granted earlier to officers of the Army Medical Corps.
• The selection process was directed to be completed within a fixed timeframe.

These directions attained finality, and Permanent Commissions were granted to the officers who were petitioners in those proceedings.

Exclusion of the Appellant

Lt. Col. Chandel did not join the earlier litigation. She explained that at the relevant time:

• She was in the advanced stage of pregnancy.
• She proceeded on maternity leave on 16 May 2013.
• She delivered her child on 1 July 2013.

As a result, although she was identically situated, her case was not considered when Permanent Commissions were granted pursuant to the 2014 AFT judgment.

Representations and Rejections

• 6 September 2014: She submitted a representation seeking similar relief.
• 15 September 2014: The representation was rejected on the ground that the one-time age relaxation applied “only to the petitioners” and would not form a precedent.
• Subsequent representations were also rejected, primarily on the ground that she did not meet the eligibility criteria.

Despite multiple attempts to seek redress, including filing and withdrawing applications before the AFT with liberty to refile, her claim was ultimately dismissed by the AFT, Regional Bench, Lucknow, on 5 January 2022.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was called upon to decide several interrelated legal and constitutional issues, including:

• Whether an officer who was identically situated with successful litigants before the AFT could be denied parity solely because she was not a party to the earlier proceedings.
• Whether refusal to extend the benefit of a judicial decision to similarly placed persons amounted to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Whether the AFT, Regional Bench, erred in denying relief on the narrow ground that the appellant was not a petitioner in the earlier batch of cases.
• Whether the appellant’s claim was barred by delay or laches.
• Whether the Supreme Court could invoke Article 142 to grant substantive relief in the peculiar facts of the case.

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

Principle of Parity and Non-Discrimination

The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that when a court declares the law or grants relief in favour of a citizen, similarly situated persons should ordinarily be extended the same benefit without being compelled to approach the court individually.

Relying on Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise and K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, the Court emphasised that denying relief to non-litigating but similarly placed persons would be unjust.

The Court quoted with approval the observation from K.I. Shephard that:

“There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners.”

Rejection of the “Only to the Petitioners” Argument

The Supreme Court found the departmental endorsement stating that relief was confined “only to the petitioners” to be patently erroneous. It held that:

• The AFT, Principal Bench, had not barred extension of relief to others.
• The clarification and review orders relied upon by the respondents did not dilute the main judgment.
• Declaring that a judgment would not form a precedent did not mean that identically situated individuals could be denied its benefit.

Identical Position of the Appellant

The Court noted that:

• The appellant had completed five years of service and become eligible for the third chance before 20 March 2013.
• Her situation was indistinguishable from that of the officers who obtained relief in 2014.
• Denying her the same benefit amounted to hostile discrimination.

In a strongly worded passage, the Court observed that accepting the government’s stand would legitimise an unreasonable approach, particularly unfair to service personnel who may be unable to litigate promptly due to postings in difficult terrain.

Delay and Laches

On the issue of delay, the Court held that:

• The appellant had been pursuing her remedies since 2014.
• Periods of delay were adequately explained by her postings, maternity, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
• In any event, where a clear case of discrimination is established, relief should not be denied on technical grounds.

Consideration of Service Record

The Court took note of several factors in favour of the appellant:

• Continuous service since 2007.
• Grant of further service extensions, including a four-year extension in 2017.
• Award of a Commendation Card by the Chief of Army Staff in 2019.
• Her present rank as Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Dental Corps.
• Absence of any adverse material regarding her performance.

Exercise of Powers Under Article 142

Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held that the interests of complete justice warranted direct intervention.

The Court directed that:

• The appellant be granted Permanent Commission.
• The grant take effect from the same date as that of similarly situated officers who obtained relief pursuant to the AFT’s 2014 judgment.

All consequential benefits, including:

• Seniority
• Promotion
• Monetary benefits and arrears

be extended to her.

The directions were ordered to be implemented within four weeks.

Final Verdict

• Appeal Allowed
• Impugned order of the AFT, Regional Bench, Lucknow, quashed
• Permanent Commission directed with retrospective effect and full consequential benefits
• No order as to costs

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…