Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel, was commissioned as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Army Dental Corps on 10.03.2008 at the age of 27 years 11 months and 28 days. Under the then-existing regulations, she was entitled to three chances for the departmental examination for permanent commission, with age relaxation up to the full period of reckonable service. She failed the first two chances. On 15.11.2012, her services were extended for five years. By 09.03.2013, she had completed five years of service and was eligible for her third chance. However, on 20.03.2013, amendments were made to the policy: Para 4(a) was amended to cap age relaxation at 35 years for those with PG qualifications, and Para 4(b) was deleted. This rendered the appellant ineligible for the third chance. Several similarly situated officers challenged the amendment before the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 and batch. The Principal Bench upheld the policy but directed one-time age relaxation and consideration for permanent commission under the previous policy for those who were eligible in 2012 but became ineligible in 2013. The appellant could not join that litigation due to pregnancy and maternity leave. She made representations, which were rejected on the ground that the relief was granted only to the petitioners in that case. She then filed O.A. No. 241 of 2021 before the AFT Regional Bench, Lucknow, which dismissed her application, holding that she was not a party to the earlier case and could not claim the benefit. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the principle of parity applies: where a citizen obtains a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated should be extended the benefit without needing to litigate. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to consider the appellant's case for permanent commission with one-time age relaxation in terms of the previous policy, as done for the petitioners in O.A. No. 111 of 2013, within two months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Permanent Commission - Parity - Short Service Commissioned Officers - Army Dental Corps - The appellant, who was similarly situated to the petitioners in O.A. No. 111 of 2013, was denied the benefit of the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench merely because she was not a party to that litigation. The Supreme Court held that where a citizen obtains 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 court directed the respondents to consider the appellant's case for permanent commission with one-time age relaxation in terms of the earlier policy, as done for the petitioners in O.A. No. 111 of 2013. (Paras 14-17) B) Service Law - Age Relaxation - One-time Exception - The amendment of 20.03.2013 deleted Para 4(b) of AI 37/78 and amended Para 4(a), capping age relaxation at 35 years for those with PG qualifications. The Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench had directed one-time age relaxation for officers who became ineligible due to the amendment. The Supreme Court extended the same benefit to the appellant, noting that the rejection of her representation on the ground that the relief was 'only to the petitioners' was patently erroneous. (Paras 5-10, 16-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Army Dental Corps, who was not a party to the earlier successful litigation before the Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench, is entitled to the same relief of one-time age relaxation and consideration for permanent commission as granted to similarly situated officers in that case.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench, Lucknow dated 05.01.2022, and directed the respondents to consider the appellant's case for permanent commission with one-time age relaxation in terms of the previous policy, as done for the petitioners in O.A. No. 111 of 2013, within two months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Doctrine of parity
- Benefit of judgment to non-litigants similarly situated
- One-time age relaxation
- Extension of age limit for permanent commission
- Army Dental Corps regulations
