LT. COL. SUPRITA CHANDEL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Articles

LT. COL. SUPRITA CHANDEL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court adjudicated on the matter concerning the denial of Permanent Commission to a Short Service Commissioned (SSC) Officer in the Army Dental Corps (AD Corps) due to an amendment introduced in 2013. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, had previously granted relief to a batch of officers identically situated to the Appellant, allowing them to be considered for permanent absorption by granting a one-time age relaxation under the unamended policy. However, the Appellant was excluded from the benefit merely because she was not a petitioner in the original litigation.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Appellant, emphasizing the principle of equal treatment of identically situated individuals and citing the precedents of Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi (1975) 4 SCC 714 and K.I. Shephard v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 431. The Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct the grant of Permanent Commission to the Appellant with all consequential benefits.

Keywords:

Armed Forces Tribunal; Permanent Commission; Identically situated officers; Short Service Commissioned Officer; One-time age relaxation.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:

Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Ors.

ii) Case Number:

Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022

iii) Judgment Date:

09 December 2024

iv) Court:

Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:

Hon’ble Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan

vi) Author of Judgment:

Justice K.V. Viswanathan

vii) Citation:

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 381 : 2024 INSC 942

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Article 142 of the Constitution of India
Army Instructions (AI) 37 of 1978 and AI 15 of 1979
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007

ix) Judgments Overruled (if any):

None

x) Case Related to Which Law Subjects:

Service Law
Armed Forces Law
Administrative Law
Constitutional Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case concerns the denial of Permanent Commission to an SSC Officer in the Army Dental Corps following the 2013 amendment to AI 37 of 1978. The amendment removed the provision allowing age relaxation for appearing in the third attempt for the Permanent Commission examination. As a result, officers like the Appellant, who had completed five years of service, were disqualified. However, a group of similarly placed officers approached the AFT, Principal Bench, and secured relief, but the Appellant was excluded since she had not been a party to the original litigation.

When the Appellant approached the AFT, Regional Bench, Lucknow, for similar relief, her plea was dismissed, citing that the AFT, Principal Bench, had granted relief only to the original petitioners. The Supreme Court, in this appeal, analyzed the principle of equality and non-discrimination and ruled in favor of the Appellant.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel was commissioned as an SSC Officer in the AD Corps on 10.03.2008.
Under AI 37/78 and AI 15/79, SSC officers were entitled to three attempts for Permanent Commission, with age relaxations.
The Appellant failed in her first two attempts but was eligible for a third attempt after completing five years of service in 2013.
On 20.03.2013, the policy was amended, capping the age limit at 35 years and removing the provision for an age relaxation beyond 35 years for non-PG holders.
Consequently, the Appellant lost her third attempt due to the amendment.
Identically placed officers challenged the amendment before the AFT, Principal Bench, in O.A. No. 111 of 2013, which allowed them a one-time age relaxation.
The Appellant, due to pregnancy, could not join the litigation.
The Ministry of Defence denied her representation for similar relief, citing that the AFT’s relief was only for the original petitioners.
The AFT, Regional Bench, Lucknow, dismissed her plea, upholding the Ministry’s stand.
The Appellant challenged the AFT’s ruling before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

Whether the benefit granted by the AFT, Principal Bench, should extend to similarly placed officers who were not petitioners in the original case?
Whether the denial of a third attempt due to a policy amendment constitutes discrimination?
Whether Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked to grant relief to the Appellant?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The principle of equal treatment requires that similarly situated persons be treated alike.
The AFT, Principal Bench’s order did not prohibit extending the benefit to others.
The Appellant was prevented from litigating due to pregnancy, which is a natural and unavoidable circumstance.
The amendment was introduced when she had already acquired eligibility, violating the principle of legitimate expectations.
Article 142 empowers the Court to grant complete justice.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The AFT’s ruling was limited to original petitioners.
The Appellant had delayed in approaching the Tribunal.
The policy amendment was valid and applicable universally.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 142, Constitution of India
Army Instructions (AI) 37/78 and AI 15/79
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007

I) JUDGMENT

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The principle of equal treatment requires that similarly situated persons should be given the same benefits without needing separate litigation (Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, 1975).
Excluding the Appellant solely due to non-participation in prior litigation is discriminatory (K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, 1987).
The AFT’s order did not explicitly restrict the benefit to the original petitioners.
The delay in seeking relief was justified due to her posting in a remote area and the COVID-19 pandemic.

b) OBITER DICTA

Authorities should suo motu apply beneficial judgments to identically situated persons.
Courts must adopt a pragmatic approach in cases of service law.

c) GUIDELINES ISSUED

The Appellant is granted Permanent Commission.
She will receive all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion, and arrears.
The decision must be implemented within four weeks.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment establishes a strong precedent on the principle of equal treatment in service law. The ruling reaffirms that litigation should not be a precondition for justice, and authorities must apply beneficial rulings uniformly.

Articles