Armed Forces – Permanent Commissioning – Benefit of – Extension of benefit to similarly situated persons – AppellantShort Commissioned Officer in Army Dental Crops, denied third opportunity for permanent Commission in view of amendment in 2013 – However, the Principle Bench of the AFT holding that the applicants (identically situated officers) were denied the third chance directed consideration of their cases for permanent absorption by granting one-time age relaxation by considering them under the unamended policy – Appellant not considered because she was not part of the application – Appellant filed Original Application before the AFT, Regional Bench seeking the relief granted to the batch of similarly situated ones by AFT, Principal Bench, which attained finality– Said application dismissed – Correctness: Held: Where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained 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 – No doubt, in exceptional cases where the court has expressly prohibited the extension of the benefit to those who have not approached the court till then or in cases where a grievance in personam is redressed, the matter may acquire a different dimension, and the department may be justified in denying the relief to an individual who claims the extension of the benefit of the said judgment – While the AFT Principal Bench granted relief to the applicants, it did not prohibit the department from considering similarly situated persons – Appellant is entitled to parity with those applicants who succeeded before the AFT, Principal Bench – Union of India not been able to point out any valid justification as to how the applicants who obtained the benefit from the AFT, Principal Bench and batch are not identically situated with the Appellant – Accepting the stand of the Union of India would result in this Court putting its imprimatur on an unreasonable stand adopted by the authorities – If the applicants who are identically situated to the appellant were found to be eligible to be given a third chance for promotion, because they acquired eligibility before the amendment, no reason why the appellant should not be treated alike – No delay in the appellant approaching the tribunal – Appellant wrongly excluded from consideration when other similarly situated officers were considered and granted permanent commission – Since nothing adverse placed on record with regard to performance of the Appellant, in exercise of powers u/Art. 142 of the Constitution, the Appellant ought to be given Permanent Commission – Appellant’s case be taken up for grant of Permanent Commission and be extended the benefit of Permanent Commission along with the all consequential benefits with effect from the same date the similarly situated persons who obtained benefits pursuant to the judgment of the AFT, Principal Bench – Order of the AFT, Regional Bench quashed and set aside – Constitution of India – Art. 142. [Paras 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23-25]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.