Facts:
The appellant, Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel, was commissioned as a Short Service Commission (SSC) Officer in the Army Dental Corps on March 10, 2008. Under the original policy, she was entitled to three attempts at departmental examinations for permanent commission (PC). While she was eligible for her third attempt in 2013, amendments to the policy introduced in March 2013 capped age relaxations and restricted eligibility to those with postgraduate qualifications. This deprived the appellant of her chance. A group of similarly situated officers obtained relief from the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Principal Bench in 2014, but the appellant was excluded because she did not join the litigation at the time due to maternity leave and personal circumstances.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that she was similarly situated to the officers who were granted relief by the AFT Principal Bench in 2014. She claimed discrimination, stating that the amended policy unfairly deprived her of an opportunity to appear for her third attempt at permanent commission. She sought parity with the officers who obtained the benefit of age relaxation and permanent commission through the 2014 judgment.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents contended that the relief granted in the 2014 judgment was specific to the petitioners of that case and could not be extended to the appellant. They argued that the appellant’s application was barred by limitations and emphasized that the amended policy was intra vires and uniformly applicable.
Issues:
- Whether the appellant, being similarly situated to the petitioners of the 2014 judgment, is entitled to parity in relief.
- Whether the amended policy dated March 20, 2013, was discriminatory in its operation against the appellant.
- Whether the relief granted by the AFT Principal Bench in 2014 could be extended to the appellant despite her non-participation in the earlier litigation.
- Whether the appellant’s application is barred by limitation due to her delay in approaching the tribunal.
Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court held that the principle of equality demands that similarly situated persons should receive similar relief, irrespective of whether they approached the court initially. The Court observed that the appellant was discriminated against despite being eligible under the pre-amendment policy. It rejected the argument that the 2014 relief was restricted solely to the original petitioners. The delay in filing was excused considering the appellant’s circumstances, including maternity leave and COVID-19 disruptions.
Principle of the Case:
When a court judgment declares a principle of law or extends a benefit to a group of similarly situated individuals, the same benefit must be extended to others who are equally situated without requiring them to individually litigate, unless explicitly restricted by the judgment.
Final Order:
The Supreme Court directed the respondents to grant permanent commission to the appellant with retrospective effect from the date the similarly situated officers received it. All consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion, and monetary arrears, must be provided within four weeks. The appeal was allowed, and the AFT’s order dismissing her application was set aside.
Impact on Public Law and Order:
This judgment reinforces principles of equality and fairness in administrative decisions, ensuring uniformity in applying policies. It discourages discriminatory practices and strengthens trust in the judiciary as a protector of rights. It also sets a precedent for addressing grievances of personnel in the armed forces, fostering morale and cohesion.
Case Citation: Supreme Court of India, Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022, Decided on December 9, 2024
