Armed Forces: Permanent Commission – Claim for, by Women Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCO) – The Delhi High Court in its lead judgment in *Babita Puniya v. Secretary & Anr, issued specific directions for considering Women SSCO in the Air Force and in the Army for the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) – Indian Air Force implemented the said judgment only for those officers who were in service as on 12 March 2010 or those retired/released officers who were not in service as on 12 March 2010 but had filed writ petitions before their release – Appellants were left out from the reinstatement plan of IAF as they were released from service prior to 12 March 2010 – Appellants unsuccessfully challenged the manner of implementation of decision in *Babita Puniya v. Secretary & Anr. – On appeal, Held: Para 61(3) of the judgment of the Delhi High Court provided that Women SSCOs of the IAF who had opted for PC but were not granted PC but allowed only an extension of their Short Service Commissions were entitled to PC at par with men SSCOs with all consequential benefits – It covers only two categories (i) Serving women SSCOs as on the date of the judgment (ii) Women SSCOs who had instituted writ petitions before the High Court but who had retired during the course of the pendency of the petitions – Hence, submission of appellants of including them in reinstatement plan of IAF cannot be accepted as they did not fall into any of the above two categories – However, as a matter of fact entire litigation was pursued in the form of a PIL – Appellants had a legitimate expectation since the respondents by their representations in the policy circular dated 25 November 1991 and in published advertisements created expectations among the women SSCOs regarding the grant of PC on completion of five years of service – The women SSCOs continued to be under a legitimate expectation that their extended SSC tenure would be converted into a PC as they were induced in service with a specific representation of being considered for PC – Hence, appellants should be considered for the grant of pensionary benefits as the reinstatement in service is not a viable option having regard to the exigencies of service – This direction emanate in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court u/Art.142 of the Constitution of India to bring about complete and substantial justice and remove the pernicious effects of gender discrimination which had taken place in the past in the Indian Air Force – Directions passed – Legitimate expectation – Constitution of India – Art.142.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Paragraph 61(3) of the judgment of the Delhi High Court provided that women SSCOs of the IAF who had opted for PC but were not granted PC but allowed only an extension of their Short Service Commissions were entitled to PC at par with men SSCOs with all consequential benefits. PC was to be offered to them after the completion of five years. This will cover consequential benefits including promotion and other financial benefits. However, the benefits were to be made available only to those women officers who were in service and to those who had approached the High Court by filing petitions though they had retired during the course of the pendency of the petitions. The directions of the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 12 March 2010 envisaged that the benefits were to be made available to those “women officers in service who had instituted proceedings before the High Court and had retired during the pendency of the writ petitions”, and that by virtue of direction (iv), it was envisaged that those women officers who had not attained the age of superannuation for PC officers would be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Hence, it is not possible to accept the wider submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants that they were expressly covered by para 61 of the Delhi High Court decision. [Paras 20, 25, 26][815-C-D; 816G-H; 817-A-D]
2. The entire litigation initially was pursued in the form of a PIL which was moved by an advocate. During the pendency of the proceedings, officers of the Air Force and the Army joined in the proceedings. The appellants are all officers who are in service since their initial appointments in 1993. In terms of the policy circular which held the field as well as the advertisements in pursuance of which they were recruited, they were under a legitimate expectation that they would be considered for the grant of PC at the end of five years. However, they were not offered PC and were instead granted extensions in service. [Para 28][817E-G]
3. In the present case, the appellants had a legitimate expectation since the respondents by their representations in the policy circular dated 25 November 1991 and in published advertisements created expectations among the women SSCOs regarding the grant of PC on completion of five years of service, subject to vacancies and suitability. All the women officers were eligible to be considered for grant of PC between years 2000 to 2003, but they were only given an extension of SSC in teeth of the legitimate expectation which was held out in the initial terms and conditions of appointment. The male counterparts of the appellants were considered for and granted PC after their five years of service. The women SSCOs continued to be under a legitimate expectation that their extended SSC tenure would be converted into a PC as they were induced in service with a specific representation of being considered for PC. The Delhi High Court in the *Babita Puniya judgment dated 12 March 2010 had also applied the doctrine of legitimate expectation and observed that the doctrine of legitimate expectation, grounded in the rule of law, required regularity, predictability and certainty in government dealings with the public, operating on procedural and substantive matters. Most of these officers joined service between 1993 and1998 and were eventually released from service between December 2006 and 2009. They have put in long years of service for the IAF. During the course of the hearing, the Court has been fairly apprised on behalf of the Air Force authorities that the officers have an excellent track record. [Paras 30, 31][818-C-G]
4. This batch of officers who moved the Delhi High Court soon after the decision in *Babita Puniya and within a reasonable period from the date of their release should not be denied the benefit which emanates from that judgment. At the same time, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the officers have been released from service on diverse dates between December 2006 to December 2009. Reinstatement in service would not therefore be a viable option particularly having regard to the exigencies of service in an armed force of the nation. However, following the logic of the earlier decision of this Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya, the officers should be considered for the grant of pensionary benefits. [Para 32][818H; 819-A-B]
5. Directions: i. All the women SSCOs governed by the present batch of cases shall be considered for the grant of onetime pensionary benefits on the basis that they have completed the minimum qualifying service required for pension; ii. The cases of the appellants shall be evaluated on the basis of the HRP dated
19 November 2010 bearing Part No 5; and iii. The officers who are found eligible for the grant of pensionary benefits in terms of the present direction shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary, but the arrears of pension shall be payable with effect from the date on which the officers are deemed to have completed twenty years of service; iv. This Court dismissed several other petitions filed by officers who had moved the Delhi High Court after a considerable degree of delay following their release from service; and v. In the present batch of cases, there are three officers who have scored QRs between 6.29 and 6.41. The case of these officers shall be considered sympathetically by the Air Force authorities on the same footing. [Para 34][820-C-F] *Babita Puniya v. Secretary & Anr (2010) 168 DLT
115 (DB); Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Others (2020) 7 SCC 469 : [2020] 3 SCR 833; State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi Civil Appeal Nos. 3860-3862 of 2020; 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968; Lt. Col. Nitisha and Others v. Union of India WP(C) No. 1109 of 2020; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 261; Union of India v. Lt. Cd. Annie Nagaraja (2020) 13 SCC 1 : [2020] 10 SCR 433 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.