In a significant judgment delivered on December 9, 2024, the Supreme Court of India granted relief to Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel by directing the Union of India to grant her a permanent commission in the Army Dental Corps. The decision, rendered by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, overturns an earlier order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Regional Bench, Lucknow, which had denied her similar relief.
The court held that the appellant was entitled to equal treatment with her counterparts who had been granted permanent commission under similar circumstances following an AFT Principal Bench judgment in 2014. This ruling not only secures justice for Lt. Col. Chandel but also reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring equality and fairness in the treatment of service personnel.
Case Background
Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel, commissioned as a Short Service Commission (SSC) officer in the Army Dental Corps in 2008, sought permanent commission through departmental examinations. The policy at the time of her commission allowed three attempts to qualify for permanent commission, including an age relaxation for eligible officers. However, in 2013, a policy amendment limited the age relaxation to 35 years and only for officers with postgraduate dental qualifications.
Lt. Col. Chandel had already exhausted two attempts and was poised for a third, but the amendment rendered her ineligible, depriving her of her final opportunity. This amendment led to a legal battle by other officers similarly affected, culminating in a favorable ruling by the AFT Principal Bench in 2014. The court granted these officers permanent commission with retrospective benefits, reasoning that the sudden policy change created undue hardship.
However, Lt. Col. Chandel, unable to join that litigation due to her pregnancy and subsequent maternity leave, was excluded from the benefits extended to her peers. Despite filing representations and a fresh case before the AFT Regional Bench, Lucknow, her requests for similar relief were rejected on procedural grounds, prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
The appeal raised critical legal issues:
1. Parity of Treatment: Whether the appellant, though not part of the earlier litigation, was entitled to similar relief as officers in analogous circumstances who had secured permanent commissions.
2. Impact of Policy Amendments: The implications of the 2013 policy changes on the rights of officers who were eligible under the previous regulations.
3. Principle of Equality: Whether the denial of relief to the appellant constituted discrimination under the law.
Supreme Court Observations
The Supreme Court’s judgment highlighted the fundamental principle of equality in service matters. It noted that the appellant was “similarly situated” to the officers who benefited from the 2014 AFT judgment. Denying her relief solely because she was not a party to the earlier litigation would amount to discrimination.
Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed:
“Where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favor, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court.”
The Court rejected the argument that the AFT’s 2014 order was limited to specific petitioners. It further criticized the respondent authorities for adopting a narrow interpretation that excluded deserving candidates like Lt. Col. Chandel.
Justice Viswanathan drew attention to the appellant’s unblemished service record, including commendations and extensions, stating that the delay in her case was neither deliberate nor a disqualification. The Court also cited the principle of fairness, remarking:
“What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.”
The Judgment
Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, the Supreme Court issued the following directives:
1. Lt. Col. Chandel shall be granted a permanent commission with effect from the same date as officers covered under the 2014 AFT judgment.
2. She shall receive all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion, and arrears.
3. The directives are to be implemented within four weeks.
The Court emphasized that Lt. Col. Chandel’s exclusion from consideration was neither her fault nor justified by the policy amendments. The bench also clarified that exceptional service personnel should not suffer procedural injustices, particularly when their peers have received similar relief.
