'What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander': Supreme Court directs Centre to grant permanent commission to woman Army officer

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Union government to grant permanent commission to a woman Army officer, who was discriminated against similarly situated officers, saying 'what is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander'.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan felt the authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the 2013 judgment of AFT, Principal Bench to the appellant Lt Col Suprita Chandel as she has a distinguished service as an officer and has continuously worked since 2007, besides having got commendation card by the Chief of Army Staff on January 14, 2019.

Allowing her appeal against denial of relief by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow, the bench held that the appellant is entitled to parity with those applicants who succeeded before the AFT, Principal Bench Delhi in giving a third chance for promotion, because they acquired eligibility before the amendment in rules on March 20, 2013.

With the amendment in rules, the appellant was deprived of her third chance since the extension was capped at 35 years and was confined to those who were in receipt of PG qualification of Masters in Dental Surgery on and from March 20, 2013.

The bench opined accepting the stand of the respondents in this case would result in this court putting its imprimatur on an unreasonable stand adopted by the authorities.

Writing the judgment, Justice Vishwanathan said, "To illustrate, take the case of the valiant Indian soldiers bravely guarding the frontiers at Siachen or in other difficult terrain. Thoughts on conditions of service and job perquisites will be last in their mind. Will it be fair to tell them that they will not be given relief even if they are similarly situated, since the judgment they seek to rely on, was passed in the case of certain applicants alone who moved the court? We think that would be a very unfair scenario."

In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, the court directed that the appellant ought to be given permanent commission.

"We direct that the appellant’s case be taken up for grant of permanent commission and she be extended the benefit with effect from the same date the similarly situated persons who obtained benefits pursuant to the judgment dated 22.01.2014 of the Principal Bench of the AFT," the bench said.

In the judgment, the bench also underscored when a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his or her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court.

The bench also said, 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.

It found the appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration when other similarly situated officers were considered and granted permanent commission.

The court also said she can't be non-suited on the ground of delay due to the special facts of this case.

It also noted she has been seeking justice from 2014 and the only delay between 2017 to 2021 after the withdrawal of the earlier applications with liberty, was due to the fact that between August, 2017 and 2019 she was posted in Arunachal Pradesh and it was during this time that the appellant made a second representation. Thereafter, the period between March, 2020 and January, 2021 was on account of Covid-19 pandemic.

"Today, eleven years have elapsed. It will not be fair to subject her to the rigors of the 2013 parameters as she is now nearly 45 years of age. There has been no fault on the part of the appellant," the bench said.