Summary
These women officers joined the Indian Air Force as Short Service Commission officers between 1993 and 1998. They were recruited on a promise that they would be considered for Permanent Commission after five years, but were only given extensions and were released between 2006 and 2009. They sued after the Delhi High Court's Babita Puniya judgment. The Supreme Court held that they were not covered by that judgment's directions, which reached only serving officers and those who had already sued. Even so, they had a legitimate expectation of being considered and had moved promptly. Reinstatement was not viable, so under Article 142 the Court directed that they be considered for one-time pensionary benefits.
Issues
- Whether women SSC officers of the Air Force released before 12 March 2010 who had not sued earlier were covered by paragraph 61 of the Delhi High Court's judgment in Babita Puniya.
- Whether, though not covered, they should receive relief on the basis of legitimate expectation and, if so, of what kind.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaThe doctrine of legitimate expectation, grounded in fair and non-arbitrary state action, applied to the representations in the 1991 circular and advertisements that women SSC officers would be considered for PC after five years. (¶¶ 29, 30)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaInvoked to grant one-time pensionary benefits to the released officers, to do complete justice and remedy past gender discrimination, as reinstatement was not viable. (¶¶ 32, 34)
Held
- Paragraph 61 of the Babita Puniya judgment must be read with its reasoning in paragraph 60 and with this Court's direction 87.3 in the Army appeal: its benefits reach only officers in service on the date of judgment and those who had sued and were released during the pendency of their petitions, and paragraph 61(4) creates no additional category; the appellants are therefore not expressly covered. (¶¶ 20, 21, 24, 25, 26)
- The appellants nonetheless had a legitimate expectation, created by the circular of 25 November 1991 and the advertisements, of being considered for PC after five years, which was defeated when they were only given extensions while male counterparts were considered; having good records and having moved the High Court soon after Babita Puniya and within a reasonable time of release, they should not be denied its benefit. (¶¶ 28, 30, 31, 32)
- Reinstatement after release between December 2006 and December 2009 is not viable given service exigencies, so under Article 142 the officers are to be considered for one-time pensionary benefits as if they had completed minimum qualifying service, evaluated under the HRP of 19 November 2010, with arrears of pension (but not salary) from the date they would have completed twenty years; three officers with QRs between 6.29 and 6.41 are to be considered sympathetically, and petitions filed after considerable delay stand dismissed. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 79-82 of 2012 and connected appeals against the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 11.08.2011 in WP (C) Nos. 5073 and 5077 of 2010 and review orders disposed of with directions for consideration of one-time pensionary benefits.