Summary
The Supreme Court held that a Short Service Commission officer of the Army Dental Corps who, like the successful applicants in an earlier AFT Principal Bench batch, lost her third chance for permanent commission because of the 20.03.2013 amendment to the age criteria was entitled to the same relief even though she had not been a party; using Article 142, it directed that she be granted permanent commission with consequential benefits.
Issues
- Whether the benefit of the AFT Principal Bench judgment in O.A. No. 111 of 2013, granting one-time age relaxation to officers who lost their third chance because of the 2013 amendment, had to be extended to an identically situated officer who was not a party.
- Whether the appellant's claim was barred by delay.
- What relief should be granted given the lapse of eleven years.
Provisions considered
- Para 4(a) and 4(b) of Annexure A, Army Instruction 37 of 1978 (as amended), read with Army Instruction 15 of 1979The unamended provisions allowed age extension for the full period of prior reckonable service; the amendment of 20.03.2013 deleted para 4(b) and capped extension at 35 years for MDS holders, depriving the appellant, who was eligible for her third chance by March 2013, of that chance, as had happened to the successful applicants before the Principal Bench. (¶¶ 2, 4, 5, 17, 19)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaOn the peculiar facts, with eleven years having passed and the appellant nearly 45, the Court directed grant of permanent commission from the date given to similarly situated officers, with all consequential benefits, instead of subjecting her to the 2013 parameters. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Held
- Where a person aggrieved by government action obtains a declaration of law in his or her favour, others similarly situated should be given the same benefit without having to go to court; those who did not litigate are not to be penalised for it. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The position may differ only in exceptional cases, such as where the court has expressly barred extending the benefit to non-parties or where the relief redressed a grievance in personam; neither applied here. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The authorities' rejection of the appellant's representation on the ground that the relaxation was 'only to the petitioners' was patently erroneous, since the Principal Bench had not prohibited extending the benefit to similarly situated persons; its later clarification and review orders did not dilute her claim. (¶¶ 10, 20)
- Since the appellant, like the successful applicants, had become eligible for her third chance before the amendment of 20.03.2013, the authorities should themselves have extended the benefit to her. Her claim rested on discrimination, so the argument that a mere reduction in chances affects no right did not apply. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- There was no disqualifying delay: the appellant had pursued relief since 2014, and the gap between 2017 and 2021 was explained by her Arunachal Pradesh posting and the Covid-19 pandemic; in any event a clear case of discrimination was not to be defeated on delay on these special facts. (¶ 21)
- As the appellant was wrongly excluded through no fault of her own and had a distinguished service record, she was directed to be granted permanent commission under Article 142 from the date similarly situated officers received it, with seniority, promotion and arrears. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeal allowed; AFT Regional Bench order dated 05.01.2022 set aside; appellant to be granted permanent commission with effect from the date given to the officers who benefited from the Principal Bench judgment of 22.01.2014, with all consequential benefits, within four weeks; no costs.